The other night I saw Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, the Tim Burton-directed, Jonny Depp-starring blockbuster. What was interesting to observe is how much of Roald Dahl's book is now even more true than when he originaly wrote it in 1964: Augustus Gloop represents all the children with weight and poor diet problems; Vercua Salt represents all the children who know only the language of 'I want'; Violet Beauregarde represents all the children for who first place alone matters (encouraged by an education system that says results, degrees and top-earning jobs are life's only priority); and Mike Teavee all the children who are addicted to television and computer games.
What perhaps the Tim Burton film also brought out, intentionally or not, was the childishness of our adults, especially Willy Wonka. Willy Wonka represents all those adults who remain children. Perhaps more sad was the fact that Willy Wonka's childishness is, the film suggests, due to his father. It seems today everyone has a problem with their dad - or that is what the media (and the church?) would suggest. We never see good examples of good dads. To the point if you have no real problem with your dad, you are somehow strange
Thursday, August 11, 2005
Monday, July 04, 2005
Edinburgh, 2/7/05
When we got to The Meadows, the place was packed. A little later, we saw that there was, in fact, another area with another stage that was as big as the bit we were in, which was more amazing. The media report there were 225,000 people in Edinburgh for the march, and I can well believe it.
Unlike Hannah, I was not suprised at the anti-G8 messages at the event. I knew in advance that Dissent! and G8Alternatives were going to be there, as well as the Clown Army and all the usual protest crowd. If you read IndyMedia regularly you get to know who is going to go to a protest, irrespective of what that protest is for. To me, I think there is a grain of truth in the idea that the G8 is essentially a part of the problem. It is a meeting of the leaders of the 8 richest countries in the world, and their aim is, first and foremost, to make sure it stays that way. To the anti-capitalist groups, that makes them the enemy.
However, I was disappointed by the amount of groups that were at the event for their own agendas. There was a vast amount of people who go to every British protest held, and frankly I don't think they remember what event they're at from one day to the next. They unfurl their CND and Peace and Anarchy! banners and march with everyone else, not quite knowing where they are or why they're there. There is a grain of truth in most of their claims, but this event is not about war, it's not about saying Bush is a terrorist and it's not about ousting the Imperial War Machine in favour of a Marxist utopia. It is simply about making poverty history; about making sure that we stand up and take responsibility for our brothers and sisters around the world who are dying, regularly, because of things that we wouldn't even take a day off work for.
What did touch me, though, was that there were more "normal" people there than there normally are at protests. Aside from the protest regulars and the odd few people that decided to go along because it was a nice day and all the shops were shut anyway, there were about 200,000 everyday folk. People that don't protest. People that have never been to a rally. People that don't spend their spare time tie-dying shirts and selling Ban the Bomb badges at car-boot sales.
These people were, for the most part, there because they've had enough of the global injustice that is extreme poverty. And, to me, this was amazing.
Being honest, getting to Edinburgh was a chore... I didn't do the driving, but it's a long old trek from Hertfordshire and it's quite uncomfortable and takes a fair bit of effort. The event wasn't too exciting. The closest we got to a celebrity was Billy Boyd, and the music bands I heard weren't especially to my taste. (Unfortunately I didn't see Baba Maal). It was good, and there was a happy atmosphere, but it was no Live8. And I think that is the point.
It's been quite sad to see most of the corporate media didn't report on Edinburgh much, if at all. As Hannah said, there would probably have been more coverage if things had got riotous. Indeed, look at BBC today and you'll see that is pretty much proven: The Carnival of Full Enjoyment taking place today and organised by the anti-capitalist groups, has enjoyed far more corporate coverage because it has enjoyed far more police intervention. Which is sad.
It is sad that, when I asked someone I know if he recorded Live8 he responded "yeah, but I cut out all the political bits to save space." It is sad that Live8, which is clearly run with the best intentions in the world, had overshadowed the real events this weekend in the Media.
My hope is that the leaders of the G8 notice the genuine attitude of the people at these events who are campaigning against poverty, and that they don't lose sight of the real issues in a sea of media gloss and revolutionary sub-agendas. There are other important issues to be addressed, such as climate change, but poverty is what it's really about right now, and this is no time to bring our other agendas into the mix.
Was it worth going? Undeniably.
Would I go again? Of course.
Will it have the effect desired? Let us pray.
Unlike Hannah, I was not suprised at the anti-G8 messages at the event. I knew in advance that Dissent! and G8Alternatives were going to be there, as well as the Clown Army and all the usual protest crowd. If you read IndyMedia regularly you get to know who is going to go to a protest, irrespective of what that protest is for. To me, I think there is a grain of truth in the idea that the G8 is essentially a part of the problem. It is a meeting of the leaders of the 8 richest countries in the world, and their aim is, first and foremost, to make sure it stays that way. To the anti-capitalist groups, that makes them the enemy.
However, I was disappointed by the amount of groups that were at the event for their own agendas. There was a vast amount of people who go to every British protest held, and frankly I don't think they remember what event they're at from one day to the next. They unfurl their CND and Peace and Anarchy! banners and march with everyone else, not quite knowing where they are or why they're there. There is a grain of truth in most of their claims, but this event is not about war, it's not about saying Bush is a terrorist and it's not about ousting the Imperial War Machine in favour of a Marxist utopia. It is simply about making poverty history; about making sure that we stand up and take responsibility for our brothers and sisters around the world who are dying, regularly, because of things that we wouldn't even take a day off work for.
What did touch me, though, was that there were more "normal" people there than there normally are at protests. Aside from the protest regulars and the odd few people that decided to go along because it was a nice day and all the shops were shut anyway, there were about 200,000 everyday folk. People that don't protest. People that have never been to a rally. People that don't spend their spare time tie-dying shirts and selling Ban the Bomb badges at car-boot sales.
These people were, for the most part, there because they've had enough of the global injustice that is extreme poverty. And, to me, this was amazing.
Being honest, getting to Edinburgh was a chore... I didn't do the driving, but it's a long old trek from Hertfordshire and it's quite uncomfortable and takes a fair bit of effort. The event wasn't too exciting. The closest we got to a celebrity was Billy Boyd, and the music bands I heard weren't especially to my taste. (Unfortunately I didn't see Baba Maal). It was good, and there was a happy atmosphere, but it was no Live8. And I think that is the point.
It's been quite sad to see most of the corporate media didn't report on Edinburgh much, if at all. As Hannah said, there would probably have been more coverage if things had got riotous. Indeed, look at BBC today and you'll see that is pretty much proven: The Carnival of Full Enjoyment taking place today and organised by the anti-capitalist groups, has enjoyed far more corporate coverage because it has enjoyed far more police intervention. Which is sad.
It is sad that, when I asked someone I know if he recorded Live8 he responded "yeah, but I cut out all the political bits to save space." It is sad that Live8, which is clearly run with the best intentions in the world, had overshadowed the real events this weekend in the Media.
My hope is that the leaders of the G8 notice the genuine attitude of the people at these events who are campaigning against poverty, and that they don't lose sight of the real issues in a sea of media gloss and revolutionary sub-agendas. There are other important issues to be addressed, such as climate change, but poverty is what it's really about right now, and this is no time to bring our other agendas into the mix.
Was it worth going? Undeniably.
Would I go again? Of course.
Will it have the effect desired? Let us pray.
Make Povery History: My Reflections
The event was quite a learning experience, never before had I been to something like this. I felt quite uncomfortable hearing some of the attitudes held by some of the people who had turned up at the event. Many people were voicing anti-G8 messages and using the event as an opportunity to express their opinions on the war in Iraq. Personally, I found this unhelpful and offensive. It upset me that the event was being hijacked and the focus for some people was not on “making poverty history”. Nevertheless, seeing such a huge turn out was very moving and it was clear who was there for the real cause.
We spent most of our time hearing about the work of the different organisations under the “make poverty history” banner and having the opportunity to make our concerns known to the G8 leaders. People were encouraged to write a message on a white band which would be sent to the G8 leaders. This is something that “The Lounge” had done with us the week before and so we were able to post their messages with ours.
Unfortunately, due to the large turn out we were unable to take part in the march. We had been queuing to do so for about an hour with little progress when the minute’s silence took place. I was feeling quite tired and getting quite impatient at this point. I felt trapped, as there was no other known way out of the venue. That minute reminded me why we were really there. It was not for our own personal gain. I thought of those who are imprisoned by poverty and have no escape. Parents struggling to feed their children and doing anything possible to earn the little money they can. Those people are tired; those people have something to be restless about.
Spending the day considering these issues and hearing about the work of the many organisations involved in “make poverty history” has encouraged me to challenge the way that I live and to get further involved in the campaign.
We spent most of our time hearing about the work of the different organisations under the “make poverty history” banner and having the opportunity to make our concerns known to the G8 leaders. People were encouraged to write a message on a white band which would be sent to the G8 leaders. This is something that “The Lounge” had done with us the week before and so we were able to post their messages with ours.
Unfortunately, due to the large turn out we were unable to take part in the march. We had been queuing to do so for about an hour with little progress when the minute’s silence took place. I was feeling quite tired and getting quite impatient at this point. I felt trapped, as there was no other known way out of the venue. That minute reminded me why we were really there. It was not for our own personal gain. I thought of those who are imprisoned by poverty and have no escape. Parents struggling to feed their children and doing anything possible to earn the little money they can. Those people are tired; those people have something to be restless about.
Spending the day considering these issues and hearing about the work of the many organisations involved in “make poverty history” has encouraged me to challenge the way that I live and to get further involved in the campaign.
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Lightning
Just realised I've been spelling it as "Lightening" forever and that is some term to do with late-pregnancy. How odd. Anyway, In the spirit of creativity, I decided to share with you all some of Nature's very own artistry.
Unfortunately, I missed some of the better attempts because I was in awe, and also because, after a while, the computer turned off in a breif power-surge and I didn't want to let it do that again... All these are from my webcam, which i stuck out the window and got a tad wet.
Unfortunately, I missed some of the better attempts because I was in awe, and also because, after a while, the computer turned off in a breif power-surge and I didn't want to let it do that again... All these are from my webcam, which i stuck out the window and got a tad wet.
Monday, June 06, 2005
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Revenge of the Sith: the Verdict
Oh dear! Revenge of the Sith is a film which lacks a credible story, characters and script. Anakain's turn to the dark side lacks reason. Poor old Padme is just not the character she was in the first Episode. The way the film opens lacks narrative. The film itself is prettying boring, because so much of what is said is so rubbish. Here was an opportunity for a great film, an exploration of why someone turns to evil and Lucas has blown it, too caught up in his self-created world to check whether the story actually works. There are of course some memorable moments, but the verdict is episodes I, II and III should never have been made, they are pale comparison to the early films. It's sad that some much money was wasted on something that doesn't live up to any of hype and potential promise. Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi are great films because Lucas did not write or direct them. Lucas should write the story and then someone else should have been brought in to turn the story into a coherent film with real characters.
I find myself in complete agreement with this review.
Poor old Helen - this was the first Star Wars film she's seen, I can't imagine, it will encourage her to see any others.
Does anyone want to defend the film?
I find myself in complete agreement with this review.
Poor old Helen - this was the first Star Wars film she's seen, I can't imagine, it will encourage her to see any others.
Does anyone want to defend the film?
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Tony's Story
It was the last episode of 'The Monastery' tonight. Hopefully you might have seen it. Click here to read Tony's story. What do you make of it? Does the Rule of St Benedict have a point in our world today?
Monday, May 23, 2005
The Beach
Last week I acquired a fairly large sum of vouchers for WHSmith, and decided to treaat myself. They were doing one of those offers "3 DVDs for £18" was this one. Well I pounced on Spiderman and Spiderman II without a second thought, then had to choose a third. My friend got the only The Last Samuri left, so I grabbed The Beach. I vaguely remembered it being advertised a few years ago, and thought it might be worth a shot.
What I expected to see was a cross between Castaway and The Blue Lagoon with a suitable mix of post-modern pseudo-philosophy. It was not what I expected.
This was more a new-generation re-hash of Lord of the Flies mixed in with the hedonistic party-culture of the modern backpacking thrill seeker. An intersting film.
Spoilers from here.
The bit I want to focus on happens around 2-thirds in. Two of the party-lovers on "The Beach" are attacked by sharks whislt swimming. The residents of the Beach have a strict policy about the outside world, so if he wanted medical attention, the guy would have to be taken to the mainland... they would NOT allow medics onto the island. Being attacked by a shark made the guy fear water, so he refused to go. (the other guy was left to die, by the way).
A scene follows called "die quickly or get better". As the health of the man wanned, the residents became more and more dispondant that he was putting a downer on them and that they couldn't have fun while he was around. Eventually, they stick him in a tent in the forest and leave him. Only one of the islanders stays with him.
The main protagonist, Richard (Leonardo di Caprio), says "our actions would be easier to condemn if they hadn't worked. But they did... out of sight really was out of mind." The islanders, with no semblance of guilt, go back to their partying and dope-smoking.
Eventually, Richard's conscience and sensibilities return, but in many ways it is too late.
What is interesting about the story is the blatant disregard for others shown by those seeking the "ultimate adventure." There is very little conscience shown by the islanders until it is too late and things really start to hit the fan for them.
It's certainly an interesting insight into the human condition. Perhaps, to a far more credible and less exaggerated extent, we too put our own fulfilment before others at times. I think this film wants to tell us to change.
What I expected to see was a cross between Castaway and The Blue Lagoon with a suitable mix of post-modern pseudo-philosophy. It was not what I expected.
This was more a new-generation re-hash of Lord of the Flies mixed in with the hedonistic party-culture of the modern backpacking thrill seeker. An intersting film.
Spoilers from here.
The bit I want to focus on happens around 2-thirds in. Two of the party-lovers on "The Beach" are attacked by sharks whislt swimming. The residents of the Beach have a strict policy about the outside world, so if he wanted medical attention, the guy would have to be taken to the mainland... they would NOT allow medics onto the island. Being attacked by a shark made the guy fear water, so he refused to go. (the other guy was left to die, by the way).
A scene follows called "die quickly or get better". As the health of the man wanned, the residents became more and more dispondant that he was putting a downer on them and that they couldn't have fun while he was around. Eventually, they stick him in a tent in the forest and leave him. Only one of the islanders stays with him.
The main protagonist, Richard (Leonardo di Caprio), says "our actions would be easier to condemn if they hadn't worked. But they did... out of sight really was out of mind." The islanders, with no semblance of guilt, go back to their partying and dope-smoking.
Eventually, Richard's conscience and sensibilities return, but in many ways it is too late.
What is interesting about the story is the blatant disregard for others shown by those seeking the "ultimate adventure." There is very little conscience shown by the islanders until it is too late and things really start to hit the fan for them.
It's certainly an interesting insight into the human condition. Perhaps, to a far more credible and less exaggerated extent, we too put our own fulfilment before others at times. I think this film wants to tell us to change.
Friday, May 13, 2005
Mouse With Cheese
Here is a doodle I did today. I call it Mouse With Cheese. It is done in Bic blue biro, but my scanner only scans in pink so I made it grey.
It symbolises the greed of the western house-mouse: our overwhelmingly insatiable apetites and vast wealth which has ultimately led us into a life of dull greyness.
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
The Monastery
This was BBC2 tonight and on for the enxt two tuesdays 9pm. A fascinating program. Check out the bbc webpages here for more. Did anyone else see it?
Monday, May 09, 2005
some thoughts on About A Boy
Nick Hornby is one of my favourite writers and I'm looking forward to getting hold of his new book which has just been published. Tonight I watch About A Boy, which I think is one of the best films I've ever seen (I've seen it several times now) - its such a brilliant story and apt for our times. Other on konnected I posted an article back in 2003 on the film. I've reproduced here for comment.
'no man is an island' : some thoughts on About A Boy
The film About A Boy begins with the main character Will Freeman (Hugh Grant) outlining his philosophy of life: '. . . And in my opinion all men are islands and what's more now's the time to be one. This is an island age. A hundred years ago, for instance, you had to depend on other people . . . I like to think I'm pretty cool. I like to think I'm Ibizia.'
The story is all about Will learning through his unique relationship with Marcus that we all need other people, or perhaps more theologically, we were created to be in relationship with other people, and to try and function as an individual is to go against what it is to be a person.
Will Freeman believes in the creed of individualism, that is, 'I only need myself to be myself'. Will thinks of himself as an 'island', detached, isolated and unconnected to any other persons: 'He didn't want to meet Imogen, or know who Barney was, and he didn't want to hear about Christine's tiredness, and there wasn't anything else to them anymore. He wouldn't be bothering with them again' (Nick Hornby, About A Boy, 1998, 17). We find Will isn't interested in other people, only in himself. Will doesn't like the intrusion of other people into life, especially a young boy like Marcus. He's happy by himself. As Colin Gunton has said: 'individualism is a non-relational creed, because it teaches that I do not need my neighbour to myself' (The One, the Three and the Many, 1993, 32).
The film follows Will's journey, through his relationship with Marcus, from a belief in individualism to recognising that other people are important and even necessary to being yourself. So halfway through the film Will is at Marcus' home for Christmas with Marcus' mum and an odd collection of guests. Will's voiceover says, 'as I sat there, I had a strange feeling. I was enjoying myself . . . But Christmas at Marcus' gave me a warm fuzzy feeling.' Will at this point is still unable to recognise that it is a sense of community, that is, of being with other people that is the cause of this enjoyment and warm fuzzy feeling. By the end of the film though, Will is having Christmas at his house and is surrounded by a group of friends and is even contemplating marriage(!) He says, 'Every man is an island. I stand by that. But, clearly, some men are part of island chains. Below the surface of the ocean they are actually connected.'
About A Boy teaches us the lesson that being in relationship with people is important, that we cannot exist by ourselves, we need 'backup' to use Marcus' final words in the film. In a world which believes and shouts 'I don't need anyone', the church needs to be a beacon - a light to the world - that we need other persons to be ourselves. A true community is one where the relationships enable and encourage people to be themselves. Why are relationships so important? Because this is what God is like. God is triune, by which I mean he is a community of loving relations - Father, Son and Spirit, and he has created us to participate (take part) in himself, in God. This is the image of God in us - a need for the other, meaning both God and other human persons. We are only truly ourselves when we are in relationship, or to put it another way, relationships - good and bad - make us who we are. Colin Gunton, the theologian quoted above, says 'it is an inescapable feature of our human situation that we are freed or enslaved by the way others love or hate us, thus enabling us to become or preventing us from becoming the people we were created to be'(The Christian Faith, 2002, 45). That is, relationships shape our identity, they allow us or inhibit us from being our true selves.
'no man is an island' : some thoughts on About A Boy
The film About A Boy begins with the main character Will Freeman (Hugh Grant) outlining his philosophy of life: '. . . And in my opinion all men are islands and what's more now's the time to be one. This is an island age. A hundred years ago, for instance, you had to depend on other people . . . I like to think I'm pretty cool. I like to think I'm Ibizia.'
The story is all about Will learning through his unique relationship with Marcus that we all need other people, or perhaps more theologically, we were created to be in relationship with other people, and to try and function as an individual is to go against what it is to be a person.
Will Freeman believes in the creed of individualism, that is, 'I only need myself to be myself'. Will thinks of himself as an 'island', detached, isolated and unconnected to any other persons: 'He didn't want to meet Imogen, or know who Barney was, and he didn't want to hear about Christine's tiredness, and there wasn't anything else to them anymore. He wouldn't be bothering with them again' (Nick Hornby, About A Boy, 1998, 17). We find Will isn't interested in other people, only in himself. Will doesn't like the intrusion of other people into life, especially a young boy like Marcus. He's happy by himself. As Colin Gunton has said: 'individualism is a non-relational creed, because it teaches that I do not need my neighbour to myself' (The One, the Three and the Many, 1993, 32).
The film follows Will's journey, through his relationship with Marcus, from a belief in individualism to recognising that other people are important and even necessary to being yourself. So halfway through the film Will is at Marcus' home for Christmas with Marcus' mum and an odd collection of guests. Will's voiceover says, 'as I sat there, I had a strange feeling. I was enjoying myself . . . But Christmas at Marcus' gave me a warm fuzzy feeling.' Will at this point is still unable to recognise that it is a sense of community, that is, of being with other people that is the cause of this enjoyment and warm fuzzy feeling. By the end of the film though, Will is having Christmas at his house and is surrounded by a group of friends and is even contemplating marriage(!) He says, 'Every man is an island. I stand by that. But, clearly, some men are part of island chains. Below the surface of the ocean they are actually connected.'
About A Boy teaches us the lesson that being in relationship with people is important, that we cannot exist by ourselves, we need 'backup' to use Marcus' final words in the film. In a world which believes and shouts 'I don't need anyone', the church needs to be a beacon - a light to the world - that we need other persons to be ourselves. A true community is one where the relationships enable and encourage people to be themselves. Why are relationships so important? Because this is what God is like. God is triune, by which I mean he is a community of loving relations - Father, Son and Spirit, and he has created us to participate (take part) in himself, in God. This is the image of God in us - a need for the other, meaning both God and other human persons. We are only truly ourselves when we are in relationship, or to put it another way, relationships - good and bad - make us who we are. Colin Gunton, the theologian quoted above, says 'it is an inescapable feature of our human situation that we are freed or enslaved by the way others love or hate us, thus enabling us to become or preventing us from becoming the people we were created to be'(The Christian Faith, 2002, 45). That is, relationships shape our identity, they allow us or inhibit us from being our true selves.
Friday, May 06, 2005
Blair Road
Thanks Phil!
So another 4 years on Blair Road, although everyone saying it won't be the same kind of journey now his majority has been reduced. As this election been a good result for politics with imagination? I don't think so. I would have liked to have seen the Lib Dems win a few more seats - to have made some inroads into the Tories. Last night we saw a humbled Blair, Brown, Straw and Blunkett as they all promised to do some 'listening and learning'. We'll wait and see what happens.
Perhaps now we can turn this blog too other matters ...
Monday, May 02, 2005
Election Unspun
I don't know how much you've been involved with election fever and what's going on. I've just watched part of channel 4's 'election unspun' which I videoed last week (didn't watch it because I was doing my 'tv turnoff' week', but felt it was important program to watch so set the recorder). I'm glad I did, this was a revealing, if not scary discussion of the state of our political election. Click here for a write-up I found. I've decided none of the 3 parties deserve my vote, as none of them have any real ideology and are all playing consumer politics.
I'm hoping after Thursday, that this blog will take a different direction in terms of topics, but its important to get discuss this election.
I'm hoping after Thursday, that this blog will take a different direction in terms of topics, but its important to get discuss this election.
Monday, April 25, 2005
Beware the Promise of Choice
I've been reading Lost Icons (2000) by Rowan Williams and the first chapter is concerned with childhood and choice and argues that as society we are given wider and wider choice, but are disabled from knowing how to make good choices. He wants "... to demythologise the goodness of choice" (47). This is hard-hitting in an election where all the main parties are promising to give us more and more choice. Political language here of 'choice' masks the reality that more choice for some, means less choice for others. The illusion of choice without limits is nothing more than a blantant lie. With more and more choice comes less and less freedom, especially when we are unable or disabled from ability to know how to make moral choices.
The language of "choice" goes with the language of "rights" and "consumption", there is no room or at least no articulation of "responsibilities" and "duties".
Regarding advertising he says: "all advertising tends to treat its public as children - tends, that is, to suggest that decisions can be made without cost or risk" (23)
Instead he believes we need to recognise that "real choice both expresses and curtails freedom - or rather it leads us further and further away from a picture of choice that presupposes a blank will looking out at a bundle of options like goods on a supermarket shelf" (32)
And that adult choices, are "adult" because they are choices with recognised consequences: "... adult choice implies a recognition that such a choice is weighty, potentially tragic, bound up with unseen futures for the agent and others agents" (47)
(Comments please, especially from the shy people who have not yet commented. If you're always making comments hold back at lets others have a chance first.)
The language of "choice" goes with the language of "rights" and "consumption", there is no room or at least no articulation of "responsibilities" and "duties".
Regarding advertising he says: "all advertising tends to treat its public as children - tends, that is, to suggest that decisions can be made without cost or risk" (23)
Instead he believes we need to recognise that "real choice both expresses and curtails freedom - or rather it leads us further and further away from a picture of choice that presupposes a blank will looking out at a bundle of options like goods on a supermarket shelf" (32)
And that adult choices, are "adult" because they are choices with recognised consequences: "... adult choice implies a recognition that such a choice is weighty, potentially tragic, bound up with unseen futures for the agent and others agents" (47)
(Comments please, especially from the shy people who have not yet commented. If you're always making comments hold back at lets others have a chance first.)
Saturday, April 23, 2005
American Politics?
One thing I noticed last year when we were all watching the coverage of the US Presidential elections, was the role of the media. We've mentioned this already, but it is quite interesting that The Sun this week decided to actively support the Labour Party again. This means, of course, that they will launch damnable attacks on the other major parties in an attempt to make Labour look best via reductio ad absurdum: that is, making everyone else look absurd.
This tactic has already been employed by Blair and Brown this week:
"There will either be a Conservative government or a Labour government people wake up to on May 6, so that choice has now got to be made."
The chancellor, Gordon Brown, speaking in Edinburgh, warned a vote for the Lib Dems could let the Tories in through the "back door".
Mr Blair agreed, saying: "In these constituencies as I was saying earlier, votes are siphoned off that way. You end up with a Tory MP, and therefore, if there are enough of those people, a Tory government." (The Guardian)
This is little more than a scare tactic. In America, it would be accurate, as there really are only two parties that can win: Republicans or Democrats. I'll spare you that rant.
It seems to me that the cheif tactic, as I have said before, in this election is "It's either me or him, and I'm better than him." Well let's remember that we have a different political system to the US, whatever The Sun would like us to think, whatever the Blair Administration would like us to think. We have choice. We don't have to vote for the lesser of two evils. There are over a hundred parties standing for election, and there will be at least 3 in your area, more if you live in a big area.
Let's ignore the rubbish in The Sun, who, let's face it, are looking after their own interests. As Peirce Morgan said on This Week on Thursday night, "Rupert Murdoch always backs the winner. He looks after his own interests." He's supporting Labour because he thinks they will win, and he wants to carry favour. This is why Fox et al. declared the elections for Bush twice in a row. We can leave conspiracy theories at the gate, and still see it's natural for someone with a reputation to want to hedge his bets with the winners instead of looking silly.
So once again, go and vote, and vote for whoever you want to win, not the party that will stop who you don't want to win from winning.
This tactic has already been employed by Blair and Brown this week:
"There will either be a Conservative government or a Labour government people wake up to on May 6, so that choice has now got to be made."
The chancellor, Gordon Brown, speaking in Edinburgh, warned a vote for the Lib Dems could let the Tories in through the "back door".
Mr Blair agreed, saying: "In these constituencies as I was saying earlier, votes are siphoned off that way. You end up with a Tory MP, and therefore, if there are enough of those people, a Tory government." (The Guardian)
This is little more than a scare tactic. In America, it would be accurate, as there really are only two parties that can win: Republicans or Democrats. I'll spare you that rant.
It seems to me that the cheif tactic, as I have said before, in this election is "It's either me or him, and I'm better than him." Well let's remember that we have a different political system to the US, whatever The Sun would like us to think, whatever the Blair Administration would like us to think. We have choice. We don't have to vote for the lesser of two evils. There are over a hundred parties standing for election, and there will be at least 3 in your area, more if you live in a big area.
Let's ignore the rubbish in The Sun, who, let's face it, are looking after their own interests. As Peirce Morgan said on This Week on Thursday night, "Rupert Murdoch always backs the winner. He looks after his own interests." He's supporting Labour because he thinks they will win, and he wants to carry favour. This is why Fox et al. declared the elections for Bush twice in a row. We can leave conspiracy theories at the gate, and still see it's natural for someone with a reputation to want to hedge his bets with the winners instead of looking silly.
So once again, go and vote, and vote for whoever you want to win, not the party that will stop who you don't want to win from winning.
Friday, April 22, 2005
the need for imagination
It's me again. I was watching last night's Question Time and one member of the audience, during a discussion on crime, said he wanted to see more imagination used in tackling crime and punishment, and gave the specific example of restorative justice. It would be great to see one political party take this idea seriously and run with it. I really do believe we are unimaginative about tackling crime. We need to build community and a responsibility towards community. This was what Blair used to talked about in the mid-1990s before he became PM. It is unfortunate he throw it out and became so punitive-focused. Our society says you commit a crime you go to prison - we have know no ability to look at the topic in a different way - see abortion debate, the immigration debate, the education debate and health service debate. We need to help the public see imaginative ways of approaching and considering these issues.
On education, let's listen to Philip Pullman and the Archbishop of Canterbury, two people who are saying sensible things. On crime and punishment, let's take account of what's going on in New Zealand and also South Africa, in terms of restorative justice. On immigration, let's stop talking about immigrants or asylum seekers as statistics, but take into account that these are real people.
On education, let's listen to Philip Pullman and the Archbishop of Canterbury, two people who are saying sensible things. On crime and punishment, let's take account of what's going on in New Zealand and also South Africa, in terms of restorative justice. On immigration, let's stop talking about immigrants or asylum seekers as statistics, but take into account that these are real people.
Thursday, April 21, 2005
Christian Europe: RIP
There's article in today's Guardian that's called "Christian Europe: RIP". It argues that the new Pope will see the decline of Christianity in Europe. For many the idea of a Christian Europe ended quite a few years ago. There are books out now called 'post-christendom' and 'church after christendom.' The other thing is many christians in the church see this as not the problem that the media want it to be. Instead of the church trying to prop up the state it can recover more definitely its mission to the world, which my favourite theologian Stanley Hauerwas says, 'is to be the church'. For too long the church has been trying to be the world, that we've lost our distinctiveness and our purpose. So Christian Europe RIP, amen to that!
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
'We've Ad Enough' : Adverts as prompts 1
The point of an advert is of course to make you buy something.
But are they also about making you buy into something too?
A story that highlights the power of adverts can be seen in the recent controversy over an ad campaign for Reebok, where the rapper 50 Cent laughs at escaping a police chase and being shot 9 times. Presumably owing to the death-defying power of his spanking new trainers.
Reebok says: "The... campaign is intended to be a positive and empowering celebration of this right of freedom of self expression, individuality and authenticity."
Which is an ironic way to describe a mass produced product.
Not only that, but MAG (Mothers Against Guns) are holding the advert (and the company) responsible for at least 3 gun-related crimes in South London the week that the ad aired. Scary, if it's true. But no doubt quite justified. I think TV affects us more than we realise (see the post on TV turnoff Week) and it's good to see that people have voiced their opposition to seeing a powerful company using such a [dodgy] role model to glamorize crime.
The fuss worked (albeit a little too late). The ASA launched an investigation and the ads were pulled. Their spokesman said "it's almost glorified that he's been shot 9 times. There's an emphasis on that, and it's almost seen to be cool."
As a sideline, anyone fancy blogging on the fact that the ad campaign was entitled 'I Am What I Am'?!
But are they also about making you buy into something too?
A story that highlights the power of adverts can be seen in the recent controversy over an ad campaign for Reebok, where the rapper 50 Cent laughs at escaping a police chase and being shot 9 times. Presumably owing to the death-defying power of his spanking new trainers.
Reebok says: "The... campaign is intended to be a positive and empowering celebration of this right of freedom of self expression, individuality and authenticity."
Which is an ironic way to describe a mass produced product.
Not only that, but MAG (Mothers Against Guns) are holding the advert (and the company) responsible for at least 3 gun-related crimes in South London the week that the ad aired. Scary, if it's true. But no doubt quite justified. I think TV affects us more than we realise (see the post on TV turnoff Week) and it's good to see that people have voiced their opposition to seeing a powerful company using such a [dodgy] role model to glamorize crime.
The fuss worked (albeit a little too late). The ASA launched an investigation and the ads were pulled. Their spokesman said "it's almost glorified that he's been shot 9 times. There's an emphasis on that, and it's almost seen to be cool."
As a sideline, anyone fancy blogging on the fact that the ad campaign was entitled 'I Am What I Am'?!
Monday, April 18, 2005
Paxman Interviews
This week will be three interviews by Jeremy Paxman with the three major political leaders. Today saw the first, with him interviewing Charles Kennedy in Liverpool.
I have to say, it was a complete waste of time. It was half an hour of Jeremy spouting off really random and ridiculous things for the sake of his own ego, and not really allowing Charles to answer. I shan't be watching any others.
What was clear was Jeremy's grasp of rhetoric compared with Kennedy. Jeremy was saying the most absurd things, but I can guarantee someone will think Charles is rubbish for not knowing the exact income of a nurse in Cardiff. Why anyone but a nurse in Cardiff would know this is really rather a mystery to me. An example:
"do you know the exact salary of a nurse in Cardiff charles?"
"well it's about..."
"you don't do you?"
"well, not exa..."
"well i'll tell you shall I charles? it's £20k pa. you know what that means don't you charles? it means you're a dirty rotten liar who doesn't know anything and isn't worthy to sit in my presence is what it means charles."
"well..."
"you can't answer that, can you charles?"
".."
"no, i thought not. now moving on to other areas of complete inadequacy, failure and self-contradiction..."
Completely pointless, got nothing out of it politically. Just half an hour of Jeremy asking Tabloid questions and talking over the response. Honestly, I think Ali G would have done a better job.
But rhetoric, refer back to Andy's post the Beauty of Language and the corresponding Guardian article and it's all very interesting. I think it's the so called journalists that have the grasp of rhetoric, and the party leaders have to just play with normal language... which makes them look more than a bit idiotic, but could make them look honest too. Who knows...
I have to say, it was a complete waste of time. It was half an hour of Jeremy spouting off really random and ridiculous things for the sake of his own ego, and not really allowing Charles to answer. I shan't be watching any others.
What was clear was Jeremy's grasp of rhetoric compared with Kennedy. Jeremy was saying the most absurd things, but I can guarantee someone will think Charles is rubbish for not knowing the exact income of a nurse in Cardiff. Why anyone but a nurse in Cardiff would know this is really rather a mystery to me. An example:
"do you know the exact salary of a nurse in Cardiff charles?"
"well it's about..."
"you don't do you?"
"well, not exa..."
"well i'll tell you shall I charles? it's £20k pa. you know what that means don't you charles? it means you're a dirty rotten liar who doesn't know anything and isn't worthy to sit in my presence is what it means charles."
"well..."
"you can't answer that, can you charles?"
".."
"no, i thought not. now moving on to other areas of complete inadequacy, failure and self-contradiction..."
Completely pointless, got nothing out of it politically. Just half an hour of Jeremy asking Tabloid questions and talking over the response. Honestly, I think Ali G would have done a better job.
But rhetoric, refer back to Andy's post the Beauty of Language and the corresponding Guardian article and it's all very interesting. I think it's the so called journalists that have the grasp of rhetoric, and the party leaders have to just play with normal language... which makes them look more than a bit idiotic, but could make them look honest too. Who knows...
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)