As you have all probably heard, Gordon Brown was in Rochdale today and he met a lady named Gillian Duffy. Mrs Duffy seemed a nice enough person, the archetypal northern old dear. After speaking with Brown, well, dictating to him for four minutes Mr. Brown made his excuses and left. Unfortunately for him his microphone was still switched on and Sky news heard the whole thing. As the car pulled away we could hear our prime minister saying to his aids that ‘that was a disaster’ when questioned further he referred to the lady as a ‘bigoted woman’. Sky news went into overdrive for the following hour, and it is probably still going on, they replayed the clip over and over again.
I feel sorry for Gordon as it was a mistake that he could not have gotten away with. It was at an unguarded moment when he thought he was safe in his car, away from the prying eyes and ears of the press. How many of us have said something like that about someone we have just met? All of us I would guess.
Sky news should have turned off the feed from Browns microphone as soon as the interview was over. If it was Cameron they probably would have, but as objective as sky news claim to be, they are still owned by a certain Australian millionaire media monopoliser who supports the Tories.
It will be very interesting to see the front pages of the tabloids tomorrow. The sun will go for something like ‘Brown in Bigot blunder’ and then dedicate the first 5 pages to the relative ‘non-story’. The Labour supporting Mirror will probably focus on his apology to the lady and get a picture of the two of them smiling for the cameras.
I have listened to the interview that Brown gave to Duffy and I have to say, she didn’t really seem bigoted and none of her comments could be deemed as bigotry but she did appear have the fear, that a lot of old people have, against the notion of ‘the other’.
What needs to be focused on is what Brown said to her in response. He also said it in the televised debates. That over a million Europeans have arrived in this country in the last couple of years, but over a million Brits have also left to go and live in Europe.
During the three campaigns we seem to have gotten too hung up on the personality of the candidates. On the gaffs and their wives. The election is, by definition, a popularity contest. But the popularity should be based on policies. Not on isolated incidents such as this one today.
Wednesday, 28 April 2010
Saturday, 24 April 2010
Mr Benedict, A word!
Dear Pope Benedict XVI,
I would like to get a few things off my chest, as you are in charge of the Catholic Church until you die I have a couple of pointers for you. Maybe if you take my advice you may stop offending you followers. I want to talk to you about the outrageous cover-ups your priests and bishops have been up to regarding child abuse but I firstly want to speak about your visit to Africa last year.
Africa is fast becoming home to the biggest number of people who follow the Catholic faith, so it is no wonder that you visit a couple of the countries there. When you go and preach to a country you should be much more responsible in your choice of words. Africa, as you know, is troubled by the spread of HIV and something needs to be done about it. You have a duty of care to these people that look up to you to be their Gods representative on earth. Your words are taken without question and you have such a power over these people. It was Peter Parker's father that told him ‘with great power comes great responsibility’. I think you should take this advice.
Telling the people of Africa that HIV is ‘"a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems."
Aggravates the problem ay? Condoms, when they work block the virus spreading. It is a fact, the virus cannot penetrate the latex and while they may sometimes go wrong, the World Heath Organization say that ‘correct usage reduces the risk of infection by 90%’ It may be a sin to use contraception in your view but I have to ask what is more important, a cherry picked quote from the bible or the lives of millions of people. It seems you, Mr. Benedict, have chosen to promote Catholic Doctrine over looking after the heath of your relatively new followers. So I have to ask why? Is it because Catholicism is on the fall in most of the developed world and you want to keep your faith, and with it your power, alive. Or is it because you want donations from your massive congregation to keep you living in the Vatican? While we are on the subject of where you live, what right do you have to live in such a palace when your followers are starving? I am sure Jesus himself would be outraged at the disparity. Jesus was a man of the people, he lived among his disciples, when they were hungry, he was hungry. You would not catch him living it up while his followers suffered in poverty.
You desperately need to change what you said in Cameroon in March 2009 because it just may make things better. This is a continent where the fear of Aids is so rife that some Africans believe that having sex with a virgin exorcises the HIV virus from your body. This still leads to young girls being raped by HIV positive men. Guess what happens then. So come on man, step up and wield your power in a responsible way. Save lives, do not destroy them.
Which brings me to another point I would like to make. In 2001 when you were a cardinal, you sent out a memo to all priests to put the interests of the church before the safety of children.
‘The document recommended that rather than reporting sexual abuse to the relevant legal authorities, bishops should encourage the victim, witnesses and perpetrator not to talk about it. And, to keep victims quiet, it threatened that if they repeat the allegations they would be excommunicated.’
Times Online Article
This is ridiculous, and so so cruel. These children have been brought up and indoctrinated to believe that priests are men of God. That priests are free of sin. So when something this awful happens the child will believe it is they that are the sinners. On top of this is the physical and mental scaring of any kind of sexual abuse. It should be reported, and not reported through the church hierarchy, but to child protection services and the police.
Child abuse should not be treated as a sin. I think this is where your problem lies Mr. Benedict, if you keep calling it a sin, it conveys that you can be forgiven for it, saying a couple of hail Marys and a paid suspension or transfer to another parish (without having to tell the new parish why you were transferred by the way) is not a punishment.
Mr. Benedict. Stop calling child abuse a sin. It is a Crime.
I would like to get a few things off my chest, as you are in charge of the Catholic Church until you die I have a couple of pointers for you. Maybe if you take my advice you may stop offending you followers. I want to talk to you about the outrageous cover-ups your priests and bishops have been up to regarding child abuse but I firstly want to speak about your visit to Africa last year.
Africa is fast becoming home to the biggest number of people who follow the Catholic faith, so it is no wonder that you visit a couple of the countries there. When you go and preach to a country you should be much more responsible in your choice of words. Africa, as you know, is troubled by the spread of HIV and something needs to be done about it. You have a duty of care to these people that look up to you to be their Gods representative on earth. Your words are taken without question and you have such a power over these people. It was Peter Parker's father that told him ‘with great power comes great responsibility’. I think you should take this advice.
Telling the people of Africa that HIV is ‘"a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems."
Aggravates the problem ay? Condoms, when they work block the virus spreading. It is a fact, the virus cannot penetrate the latex and while they may sometimes go wrong, the World Heath Organization say that ‘correct usage reduces the risk of infection by 90%’ It may be a sin to use contraception in your view but I have to ask what is more important, a cherry picked quote from the bible or the lives of millions of people. It seems you, Mr. Benedict, have chosen to promote Catholic Doctrine over looking after the heath of your relatively new followers. So I have to ask why? Is it because Catholicism is on the fall in most of the developed world and you want to keep your faith, and with it your power, alive. Or is it because you want donations from your massive congregation to keep you living in the Vatican? While we are on the subject of where you live, what right do you have to live in such a palace when your followers are starving? I am sure Jesus himself would be outraged at the disparity. Jesus was a man of the people, he lived among his disciples, when they were hungry, he was hungry. You would not catch him living it up while his followers suffered in poverty.
You desperately need to change what you said in Cameroon in March 2009 because it just may make things better. This is a continent where the fear of Aids is so rife that some Africans believe that having sex with a virgin exorcises the HIV virus from your body. This still leads to young girls being raped by HIV positive men. Guess what happens then. So come on man, step up and wield your power in a responsible way. Save lives, do not destroy them.
Which brings me to another point I would like to make. In 2001 when you were a cardinal, you sent out a memo to all priests to put the interests of the church before the safety of children.
‘The document recommended that rather than reporting sexual abuse to the relevant legal authorities, bishops should encourage the victim, witnesses and perpetrator not to talk about it. And, to keep victims quiet, it threatened that if they repeat the allegations they would be excommunicated.’
Times Online Article
This is ridiculous, and so so cruel. These children have been brought up and indoctrinated to believe that priests are men of God. That priests are free of sin. So when something this awful happens the child will believe it is they that are the sinners. On top of this is the physical and mental scaring of any kind of sexual abuse. It should be reported, and not reported through the church hierarchy, but to child protection services and the police.
Child abuse should not be treated as a sin. I think this is where your problem lies Mr. Benedict, if you keep calling it a sin, it conveys that you can be forgiven for it, saying a couple of hail Marys and a paid suspension or transfer to another parish (without having to tell the new parish why you were transferred by the way) is not a punishment.
Mr. Benedict. Stop calling child abuse a sin. It is a Crime.
Thursday, 22 April 2010
A vote for novelty is best left to Cowell inc.
At first I thought that ‘Cleggmania’ was pretty endearing and it made the election temporarily exciting but I am getting increasingly concerned with his meteoric rise in the polls.
It seems that Britain has become obsessed with novelty in the last couple of years. Look at how well John and Edward did in the X-factor or how long John Sargent remained in Celebrity come dancing (or whatever it was called). It seems we enjoy the novelty act so much that Cowell is planning to add a fifth novelty category to the show next year. And Cowell knows his stuff.
What worries me is that unlike Jedward we cannot vote with our feet if Clegg and the Lib Dems get into power. If we vote them in we will be stuck with our most inexperienced government in 65 years, for a whole term.
I recently received a number of invites to a facebook group to get the Liberals into power. This in itself is fine and normally I would not bat an eyelid. However, this group has been created by the same people who got ‘Rage against the Machine’ to the 2009 Christmas number one.
The Rage group had over a million members that were all fanatically obsessed with getting RATM to number one. They had a great bonding experience and when they succeeded they all felt an almost religious sense of belonging. People were talking about it everywhere and it felt great to be a part of the ‘revolution against consumerism’. This is all fine when we are talking about our Christmas number one. The repercussions were felt only by Joe McEldrey and Simon Cowell. For a few days. Joe was Number one the week after anyway.
However, if Lib Dems get into power it will affect us all for at least four years. Something we should not take lightly.
The worry comes from the fact that the people in this group have become sheep. They want to replicate the feeling they experienced by making a difference last time. They want to repeat their success. They are addicted to the group mentality. Most people, obviously not all, in the group will jump on this bandwagon and vote Lib Dems without reading a shred of the policies they are voting for, just because they want to re-live their previous successes. It goes against common sense.
Like I have said before; vote for who you think will benefit yourself, your family and your community most. If that happens to be Lib Dems, vote for them. Do not vote for Clegg just because you bought a RATM single last December.
It seems that Britain has become obsessed with novelty in the last couple of years. Look at how well John and Edward did in the X-factor or how long John Sargent remained in Celebrity come dancing (or whatever it was called). It seems we enjoy the novelty act so much that Cowell is planning to add a fifth novelty category to the show next year. And Cowell knows his stuff.
What worries me is that unlike Jedward we cannot vote with our feet if Clegg and the Lib Dems get into power. If we vote them in we will be stuck with our most inexperienced government in 65 years, for a whole term.
I recently received a number of invites to a facebook group to get the Liberals into power. This in itself is fine and normally I would not bat an eyelid. However, this group has been created by the same people who got ‘Rage against the Machine’ to the 2009 Christmas number one.
The Rage group had over a million members that were all fanatically obsessed with getting RATM to number one. They had a great bonding experience and when they succeeded they all felt an almost religious sense of belonging. People were talking about it everywhere and it felt great to be a part of the ‘revolution against consumerism’. This is all fine when we are talking about our Christmas number one. The repercussions were felt only by Joe McEldrey and Simon Cowell. For a few days. Joe was Number one the week after anyway.
However, if Lib Dems get into power it will affect us all for at least four years. Something we should not take lightly.
The worry comes from the fact that the people in this group have become sheep. They want to replicate the feeling they experienced by making a difference last time. They want to repeat their success. They are addicted to the group mentality. Most people, obviously not all, in the group will jump on this bandwagon and vote Lib Dems without reading a shred of the policies they are voting for, just because they want to re-live their previous successes. It goes against common sense.
Like I have said before; vote for who you think will benefit yourself, your family and your community most. If that happens to be Lib Dems, vote for them. Do not vote for Clegg just because you bought a RATM single last December.
Tuesday, 20 April 2010
Mind your language
I have always wondered about language, It is a fascinating subject overall but my favourite part has to be the swearwords. Who exactly judges what constitutes a swearword and who ranks the severity of them?
Let me start at the top. The king of swearwords, the ultimate profanity, the word ‘Cunt’. What, semantically, is so bad about it? It is literally four letters in a certain order that describes the female genitalia. It has no extra denotative value than the word pussy or twat or vagina but is seen as more offensive. It must be the connotations but it puzzles me where these connotations come from. In America it is the worst thing you can call a woman and in Britain it seems to be aimed, rather impolitely at men.
Making love and fucking denote exactly the same thing but in our minds making love is much more sensual and, well, loving than fucking. Which conjures up images of reverse cowgirl and dirty talk. It is the same with other, non vulgar words. Would you rather be slim or scrawny? Confident or Cock-sure? Opinionated or Argumentative? I must add here that fuck is a much more taboo word than rape, why is this when rape is obviously more taboo than rough consensual sex. It is a puzzling thought.
I have often pondered why pretty much all swearwords in the English language have something to do with bodily fluids or sex. ‘Piss, Shit, Arse, Bloody, Fuck, Cocksucker, Prick, Twat’
I think it may have something to do with the assault on the hearer’s senses and mind when they are forced to hear the words. Take Shit as an example. When somebody says it to someone it is effectively forcing him or her to think of a steaming turd, which is obviously not pretty. I suppose in a way it is invading their personal thoughts. This is one idea I have that may have made the words taboo. Another possibility is the fact that these bodily fluids have connotations of disease. It is probably no coincidence that Shit is a worse word than Piss because feces carries more germs than urine. Fart is more acceptable than Piss as people, watersports enthusiasts excluded, would rather be farted on than pissed on. I find it interesting that we have no swearword for vomit; maybe it just hasn’t caught on. Chunder, Spew and barffed are all words we could find in a child’s Beano comic.
Have you ever thought it strange that Eskimos (or the politically correct term for them) have 12 words for snow? Well look at how many the English have for feces. Ill give you twelve right of the bat (Shit, Dung, Crap, Poo, Turd, excrement, defecation, bowel movement, scat, manure, doo-doo, number 2) and for good measure it has been estimated that we English speakers have 800 expressions for sex and 2000 for a lady of the night.
I want to get back to prominence of the ‘C-word’. You would think that, and spare me any sexist backlash, because historically it is men that swear more, that the vagina would evoke positive connotations rather than negative ones. Then again, as Steven Pinker wrote ‘you have to think what the connotations were before toilet paper, tampons, regular bathing and anti-fungal drugs’
You would never call your child, or anyone’s child a little cunt. (I hope) But on a semiotic level we call them much worse. For example I called a student of mine a little sod. Which is fine and would barely raise any eyebrows. On closer inspection the word ‘Sod’ comes from sodomise. I was basically calling a twelve year old ‘a little anal sex lover’ It is the same with other milder swearwords (Bugger-Buggery, Pillac-Prick, Scumbag- Condom)
Any thoughts on this will be appreciated as I cant get my fucking head around it.
Let me start at the top. The king of swearwords, the ultimate profanity, the word ‘Cunt’. What, semantically, is so bad about it? It is literally four letters in a certain order that describes the female genitalia. It has no extra denotative value than the word pussy or twat or vagina but is seen as more offensive. It must be the connotations but it puzzles me where these connotations come from. In America it is the worst thing you can call a woman and in Britain it seems to be aimed, rather impolitely at men.
Making love and fucking denote exactly the same thing but in our minds making love is much more sensual and, well, loving than fucking. Which conjures up images of reverse cowgirl and dirty talk. It is the same with other, non vulgar words. Would you rather be slim or scrawny? Confident or Cock-sure? Opinionated or Argumentative? I must add here that fuck is a much more taboo word than rape, why is this when rape is obviously more taboo than rough consensual sex. It is a puzzling thought.
I have often pondered why pretty much all swearwords in the English language have something to do with bodily fluids or sex. ‘Piss, Shit, Arse, Bloody, Fuck, Cocksucker, Prick, Twat’
I think it may have something to do with the assault on the hearer’s senses and mind when they are forced to hear the words. Take Shit as an example. When somebody says it to someone it is effectively forcing him or her to think of a steaming turd, which is obviously not pretty. I suppose in a way it is invading their personal thoughts. This is one idea I have that may have made the words taboo. Another possibility is the fact that these bodily fluids have connotations of disease. It is probably no coincidence that Shit is a worse word than Piss because feces carries more germs than urine. Fart is more acceptable than Piss as people, watersports enthusiasts excluded, would rather be farted on than pissed on. I find it interesting that we have no swearword for vomit; maybe it just hasn’t caught on. Chunder, Spew and barffed are all words we could find in a child’s Beano comic.
Have you ever thought it strange that Eskimos (or the politically correct term for them) have 12 words for snow? Well look at how many the English have for feces. Ill give you twelve right of the bat (Shit, Dung, Crap, Poo, Turd, excrement, defecation, bowel movement, scat, manure, doo-doo, number 2) and for good measure it has been estimated that we English speakers have 800 expressions for sex and 2000 for a lady of the night.
I want to get back to prominence of the ‘C-word’. You would think that, and spare me any sexist backlash, because historically it is men that swear more, that the vagina would evoke positive connotations rather than negative ones. Then again, as Steven Pinker wrote ‘you have to think what the connotations were before toilet paper, tampons, regular bathing and anti-fungal drugs’
You would never call your child, or anyone’s child a little cunt. (I hope) But on a semiotic level we call them much worse. For example I called a student of mine a little sod. Which is fine and would barely raise any eyebrows. On closer inspection the word ‘Sod’ comes from sodomise. I was basically calling a twelve year old ‘a little anal sex lover’ It is the same with other milder swearwords (Bugger-Buggery, Pillac-Prick, Scumbag- Condom)
Any thoughts on this will be appreciated as I cant get my fucking head around it.
Friday, 16 April 2010
Dinner party rules....NEVER discuss politics.
Let me clear this up straight away. I know nothing about politics and I am in no position to persuade anyone on who to vote for in the forthcoming elections as to be quite honest, I am not sure who I am going to vote for myself.
The reason I am writing this is that, like me, a lot of people do not know much about politics and we have to get by on two things. Number one is our gut reaction and number two is what the spin-doctors and politicians choose to tell us. Lets face it, the average everyman doesn’t have time to read through three party manifestos.
Most people, myself included will probably form their opinions based on the televised election debates and what they read in the tabloids. I think this is a good idea as what is important is that you make up your own mind about who you think will benefit you the most. To me, I think the way to look at the election is three-fold. Number one – Who will benefit you the most. Two- who will benefit your family the most and finally, who will benefit your community the most.
We must watch these electoral debates with an open mind and not fall for the charm and spin. We must ask questions about everything that the candidates say and weigh up the pros and cons.
I was surprised when I read the papers this morning about how Nick Clegg managed to get the majority vote in viewer’s polls after the debate. Sure, he was charismatic and charming and looked into the camera to say his most important lines. He mentioned the audience by name and it was interesting that he had as much camera time as his two rivals.
We British love an underdog and he knows this only too well. What I didn’t like is his veiled claims that he was an alternative to the big dogs. Just because two of the three choices were bad, it does not, by default, make the third good. He kept using the phrase ‘these two’ when it was his turn on camera, belittling the opposition before giving his own (and his party’s) views. He also mentioned that ‘the more you two go on, the more you sound the same’ which to be fair is true, but he also sounded pretty similar. He seemed to be saying that he was an alternative to the big two, but he didn’t quite say how. The biggest boost for the liberal democrats and Clegg is that he was seen on an equal footing as Brown and Cameron and given as much time as his rivals, of course that is going to win him votes. But should he have been there in the first place. As I understand it politics is based on majority. The more votes you get the more seats in parliament you gain , to make it fair Clegg should only have been given 20% of the air time. He had nothing to lose and everything to gain, and fair play to the man. Gain he did.
Correct me if I am wrong but it seems to me that, with the rise of the BNP, immigration seems to be the hot topic on the public and politicians lips. To me this is a shame as we Brits are a little bit too worried about the island we call home. We hold tradition in far too much regard. My view is that we should have an open world and anyone can live where they want. I realise this is idealistic but eventually it would all even out. Nobody would want to live in a crowded Britain so people would stop coming. The Brits are very hypocritical about immigration too. We have expatriate communities in just about every country in the world. Go to Costa Del Sol and you will find a mini Britain, they will, mostly, not speak Spanish, have an English breakfast everyday and shun the siesta and then complain that shops aren’t open because ‘the lazy fucking Spaniards’ are sleeping. We do not uphold their traditions and culture so why should we be so special.
I think that just because you are born in a country it does not give you ownership of a country. Birth is incredibly random, you (and I mean, the perfect you, the you you are now) would not even be here if your parents had sex the day after they did.
Why do you think all these people want to come to Britain? Because we live in a great country, built by foreign invaders. Nobody can claim to be 100% English because we have no indigenous people. Just because our ancestors migrated here from Africa 50 million years ago does not mean that we own this country.
I have completely digressed from the point I was making. The hot-topic should surely be global climate change as this is far more harmful to all of us than a few immigrants. It did not get mentioned once last night and I will be surprised if it does in the next few debates.
It was nice to see Gordon ‘Churchill’ Brown having a bit of fun with some of his lines. The airbrush comment was, although written beforehand, delivered with expert timing and accompanied by a wry smile.
Cameron’s high point was when he asked the guy who asked the question to wave so he could speak with him directly (he was behind a camera). This made him come of as human and an expert, infallible public speaker (Obama lessons perhaps)
Clegg was easily the most charismatic and charming throughout. He also got the balance of make-up right. Cameron looked far too vain with his abundance of slap and Brown could have done with a bit more. I know this seems trivial but it is massively important to the average voter. Appearance is everything (it shouldn’t be) when Nixon debated Kennedy, Kennedy was tanned and calm and youthful while Nixon had just come out of hospital and looked pasty and sweated it out a bit. Radio listeners thought Nixon had the upper hand, TV viewers gave it to Kennedy.
I am going to stop now but my next blog article will kind of be related to this final point. Try not to be too passionate about opinions, always be ready to change your mind when faced with logic, evidence or a better opinion. It is a strength to be able to change your mind. Not a weakness. So listen to all sides and make your own opinion. But don’t stick with it if something better comes along.
The reason I am writing this is that, like me, a lot of people do not know much about politics and we have to get by on two things. Number one is our gut reaction and number two is what the spin-doctors and politicians choose to tell us. Lets face it, the average everyman doesn’t have time to read through three party manifestos.
Most people, myself included will probably form their opinions based on the televised election debates and what they read in the tabloids. I think this is a good idea as what is important is that you make up your own mind about who you think will benefit you the most. To me, I think the way to look at the election is three-fold. Number one – Who will benefit you the most. Two- who will benefit your family the most and finally, who will benefit your community the most.
We must watch these electoral debates with an open mind and not fall for the charm and spin. We must ask questions about everything that the candidates say and weigh up the pros and cons.
I was surprised when I read the papers this morning about how Nick Clegg managed to get the majority vote in viewer’s polls after the debate. Sure, he was charismatic and charming and looked into the camera to say his most important lines. He mentioned the audience by name and it was interesting that he had as much camera time as his two rivals.
We British love an underdog and he knows this only too well. What I didn’t like is his veiled claims that he was an alternative to the big dogs. Just because two of the three choices were bad, it does not, by default, make the third good. He kept using the phrase ‘these two’ when it was his turn on camera, belittling the opposition before giving his own (and his party’s) views. He also mentioned that ‘the more you two go on, the more you sound the same’ which to be fair is true, but he also sounded pretty similar. He seemed to be saying that he was an alternative to the big two, but he didn’t quite say how. The biggest boost for the liberal democrats and Clegg is that he was seen on an equal footing as Brown and Cameron and given as much time as his rivals, of course that is going to win him votes. But should he have been there in the first place. As I understand it politics is based on majority. The more votes you get the more seats in parliament you gain , to make it fair Clegg should only have been given 20% of the air time. He had nothing to lose and everything to gain, and fair play to the man. Gain he did.
Correct me if I am wrong but it seems to me that, with the rise of the BNP, immigration seems to be the hot topic on the public and politicians lips. To me this is a shame as we Brits are a little bit too worried about the island we call home. We hold tradition in far too much regard. My view is that we should have an open world and anyone can live where they want. I realise this is idealistic but eventually it would all even out. Nobody would want to live in a crowded Britain so people would stop coming. The Brits are very hypocritical about immigration too. We have expatriate communities in just about every country in the world. Go to Costa Del Sol and you will find a mini Britain, they will, mostly, not speak Spanish, have an English breakfast everyday and shun the siesta and then complain that shops aren’t open because ‘the lazy fucking Spaniards’ are sleeping. We do not uphold their traditions and culture so why should we be so special.
I think that just because you are born in a country it does not give you ownership of a country. Birth is incredibly random, you (and I mean, the perfect you, the you you are now) would not even be here if your parents had sex the day after they did.
Why do you think all these people want to come to Britain? Because we live in a great country, built by foreign invaders. Nobody can claim to be 100% English because we have no indigenous people. Just because our ancestors migrated here from Africa 50 million years ago does not mean that we own this country.
I have completely digressed from the point I was making. The hot-topic should surely be global climate change as this is far more harmful to all of us than a few immigrants. It did not get mentioned once last night and I will be surprised if it does in the next few debates.
It was nice to see Gordon ‘Churchill’ Brown having a bit of fun with some of his lines. The airbrush comment was, although written beforehand, delivered with expert timing and accompanied by a wry smile.
Cameron’s high point was when he asked the guy who asked the question to wave so he could speak with him directly (he was behind a camera). This made him come of as human and an expert, infallible public speaker (Obama lessons perhaps)
Clegg was easily the most charismatic and charming throughout. He also got the balance of make-up right. Cameron looked far too vain with his abundance of slap and Brown could have done with a bit more. I know this seems trivial but it is massively important to the average voter. Appearance is everything (it shouldn’t be) when Nixon debated Kennedy, Kennedy was tanned and calm and youthful while Nixon had just come out of hospital and looked pasty and sweated it out a bit. Radio listeners thought Nixon had the upper hand, TV viewers gave it to Kennedy.
I am going to stop now but my next blog article will kind of be related to this final point. Try not to be too passionate about opinions, always be ready to change your mind when faced with logic, evidence or a better opinion. It is a strength to be able to change your mind. Not a weakness. So listen to all sides and make your own opinion. But don’t stick with it if something better comes along.
Tuesday, 13 April 2010
Its in the eye of the beholder
Love is something that has being keeping me awake at night. We all know the scientific reasons people fall for each other and how they stay loved up. A hedonistic mixture of; the lust hormones, oestrogen and testosterone, that start the attraction. Followed by the deeper attraction builders such as serotonin, dopamine and adrenaline. You then, if you are lucky, move on to the attachment chemicals of oxytocin (The cuddle hormone) and Vasopressin (released after sex that makes you feel very close to your lover)
This is how it works. But I wonder if we all feel love in the same way. When I thought I was in love I often wondered if the word ‘love’ meant the same to me as it did the girl I was in love with. If I said to her ‘picture a row of terrace houses’ I could be confident that our images in our minds would be pretty similar, albeit, not identical. Love, however I couldn’t be certain.
When you are involved in the early stages of love it seems that the two of you are superior to all other couples. That you feel this love is the real deal and only the two of you feel it, when, in reality, every other couple in the Indian restaurant feels the same way.
It isn’t just romantic love. The love parents feel for their children is the same, they feel that their love is superior to others.
So what makes us fall in love? Is it the way people look? I think that it is more how we perceive how people look. It was Proust that claimed ‘classically beautiful women should be left to men without imagination’
In Proust’s times 1871-1922 the ‘classically beautiful woman’ would be women who looked flawless, like a pristine sculpture that was beautiful from every angle, she would defiantly be rich as only the rich could afford to be clean all the time and have no grotesque features or crevices. I want to take the idea of flawless beauty into our centaury. It is no longer seen in sculptures and statues but on the cover of More magazine and Mens Heath magazine. I do not want to jump on the representation bandwagon now and nor do I want to talk about the irresponsibility of Editors putting these models up as the prize. What I do want to think about is how it is not these people we, the masses fall in love with. It seems we need a slight glitch in the make up of our crushes. We like to be able to find beauty with getting to know someone. It is crazy how somebody you once found ugly or a little frumpy can before your very eyes turn into someone you fancy. This usually happens when the personality and common interests (or the soul for any religious readers) gets projected onto the face.
We like this, and we like it if no one else can see it even more because it makes us feel important. If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, the beholder becomes indispensible to the beauty. Which makes us feel needed.
What I am getting at here is that we do not fall for classic beauties and I think Proust hit the nail on the head with his comment. However, I don’t think it is a lack of imagination that stops people falling for grotesque beauty (By grotesque I don’t mean ugly, I mean not classic, flawless beauty) I think it is a mere laziness that gives up before the, forgive me, soul shines through the face.
This is how it works. But I wonder if we all feel love in the same way. When I thought I was in love I often wondered if the word ‘love’ meant the same to me as it did the girl I was in love with. If I said to her ‘picture a row of terrace houses’ I could be confident that our images in our minds would be pretty similar, albeit, not identical. Love, however I couldn’t be certain.
When you are involved in the early stages of love it seems that the two of you are superior to all other couples. That you feel this love is the real deal and only the two of you feel it, when, in reality, every other couple in the Indian restaurant feels the same way.
It isn’t just romantic love. The love parents feel for their children is the same, they feel that their love is superior to others.
So what makes us fall in love? Is it the way people look? I think that it is more how we perceive how people look. It was Proust that claimed ‘classically beautiful women should be left to men without imagination’
In Proust’s times 1871-1922 the ‘classically beautiful woman’ would be women who looked flawless, like a pristine sculpture that was beautiful from every angle, she would defiantly be rich as only the rich could afford to be clean all the time and have no grotesque features or crevices. I want to take the idea of flawless beauty into our centaury. It is no longer seen in sculptures and statues but on the cover of More magazine and Mens Heath magazine. I do not want to jump on the representation bandwagon now and nor do I want to talk about the irresponsibility of Editors putting these models up as the prize. What I do want to think about is how it is not these people we, the masses fall in love with. It seems we need a slight glitch in the make up of our crushes. We like to be able to find beauty with getting to know someone. It is crazy how somebody you once found ugly or a little frumpy can before your very eyes turn into someone you fancy. This usually happens when the personality and common interests (or the soul for any religious readers) gets projected onto the face.
We like this, and we like it if no one else can see it even more because it makes us feel important. If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, the beholder becomes indispensible to the beauty. Which makes us feel needed.
What I am getting at here is that we do not fall for classic beauties and I think Proust hit the nail on the head with his comment. However, I don’t think it is a lack of imagination that stops people falling for grotesque beauty (By grotesque I don’t mean ugly, I mean not classic, flawless beauty) I think it is a mere laziness that gives up before the, forgive me, soul shines through the face.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
