I have absolutely no interest in Che. Parts one or two. In fact, I'm not sure I could give a fair review. Also, I haven't seen it, so I'm probably not the best person to ask? Oh, you didn't ask? Well fine. You bastard.
I haven't been watching many movies recently, mainly because the cinema in Winchester seems to have a cross between a monetary crisis and a stick up its arse, showing two movies at a time like it's some sort of selection committee. Frost/Nixon, a film I've been aching to see was in the cinema for a couple of days, whilst The Curious Case of Benjamin Button remains in the theater like a bad smell. I suppose I'm just bitter, because I haven't seen any of these films, but then again, when they only show them for a couple of days, I can't see them, so who's fault is that? I guess its mine.
Next up on the agenda, Jade Goody.
Ahhhh, Jade Goody. Isn't it amazing how since she got cancer we've all forgotten how much of a horrible person she is. This is not to say that I am not sympathetic of people with cancer, quite the opposite. I had a very surreal sort of experience when I was working as a porter in my local hospital, wheeling around patients like a human taxi cab. except they...werent...inside me. Anyway, there was a patient who was a frequent passenger on the Luke express, a woman who was a sufferer of late stage leukemia. When I started wheeling her around, she seemed rather perky, she chatted and such, but then as the weeks went on, she lost more and more hair, she talked less and less, and her husband became more and more sombre. Then suddenly, one week, she wasn't on the request list. It was pretty clear what had happened. I had it third hand and I was still affected.
Jade Goody however, decided the best way to go about her untimely death was to grab as much attention as possible about HER, rather than drawing attention to one of the most curable kinds of cancer. If she really wanted to do something good, she would donate the money from the over exposure of her wedding, and her death, to the cervical cancer fund, and not all to her children.
For God's sake. Perhaps I'm just an angry man, but I really think I have a valid point. When hundreds of people die of cancer every single year, with every case being as sad as the last, and the media focuses on the one person they almost destroyed a couple of years before, without drawing on the serious issues.
Last thing, as this is getting rather long, check out this disgusting little snot. We've all seen this by now. An 8 year old boy seemed to have had a seething libido, and couldn't keep his minuscule member inside his Lonsdale tracksuit, and the product is a child that will be a detriment to the system. I want to smack all of the parties involved in the encouragement and conception of this child on the head. Except not the child, because apparently that's illegal.
And I'm fairly sure I would be raped in jail.
Friday, 20 February 2009
Thursday, 19 February 2009
The Widgeteer
Ahhhh, economics. After the last lectures misanthropic tirade, the soothing calm of economics washed over me like a warm bath, and I was able to marinade in it for some time, before roasting it on a gentle heat and producing the well cooked blog you see before you two days later.
The economic struggle of this country was something that i really never paid a significant amount of attention to. Of course, I read about it, absorbed the information and understood it (mostly, kinda sorta) but the real fact was it wasn't really that important to me at the time. I didn't need to know, because it wasn't affecting me that much, and so I was mostly indifferent. With that smooth segway, lets move on to this weeks politics lecture.
I'm a big fan of Empiricism. I didn't know that the term existed before this week, but certainly I was a big fan of the underlying concept well before I knew the definition. The idea that you don't believe in something unless it is available to you sensually (which sounds dodgy) is one that can fit into a world that intends to progress into the future. Empiricism allows experimentation, an idea that seems to be wildy discouraged among the God fearin' members of society, which sadly, still has a very significant impact on today's world. If we were all to embrace Empiricism, in one form or another, and the red tape were to come down, then there is no measure to what the human species could achieve.
This brings me onto a hugely controversial subject regarding experimentation. During my university interview process, I was asked to discuss, with a group, a certain scenario. The general assumption was that this would weed out the weak and ugly, in order to allow the confident and powerful people progress to higher learning, where they would gather the skills needed to rule the world one day maybe. I still think it was to see who was a dick and who wasn't, but that's just me.
The question posed to us in this little debate-a-thon, was simple: "Do you think a screening process to see if an unborn child has down syndrome would be morally viable?"
Now...lets make one thing perfectly clear. I respect, and am a strong supporter, of the rights of disabled people to live, work, and pretty much do whatever they want in the world without being bothered, but my answer came under a lot of scrutiny, when i took in a deep breath, and unleashed my bombshell. "Of course" I had agreed with pre-birth screening. The main reason being that if we can rid future people of these life altering conditions, then why wouldn't we? Why would we stop progress? The one answer that came amidst the gasps was "Because its morally wrong. God wouldn't like it"
Maybe not, but considering I don't believe in him, i think him and I can call it quits.
This is why I like Empiricism. People are able to use these experiments without some justice force telling us the "big guy won't like it".
Basically, "Empiricism leads to the scientific method and empirical method leads to highly effective technological advance"
A good lecture on Empiricism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BC6DNdkt0IU.
It also says stuff about Hume, who as we all know thought of a bit of a step up from Empiricism, with a bit more added assumption.
Next up in the batting cages: A Priori. Buh. BUH. It seems non negotiable. Or rather, half of it seems non negotiable. The half which is concordant with Empiricism, that is to say, provisional ideas. As it were. The trancendent part is a little silly. Mainly because I'm an atheist, and the idea that God might exist is laughable. Therefore, it is always laughable. See what I did? That's A priori right? I could later turn into a religious person, which would be...good?
A good example of A priori reasoning in the press lately would be the furthering of the Guantanamo cases. The idea the geoverment seems to have used is that:
Extremist Muslims attack America
Therefore all Muslims are terrorists
That guy looks like a Muslim
Oh, He is a Muslim
Therefore he is a terrorist.
As for Idealists...well some of them are just plain nuts.
In the second part of the lecture, we focused on the ideas behind economics. A large part of the section was devoted to the Karl Marx contradiction to capitalism. I like Karl Marx. Not because of his ideals, but because his name sounds like Groucho Marx, and that makes me laugh.
Anyway...
Karl Marx had a strategy, that I will lovingly copy and paste from the Winchester Journalism site, simply because it is pretty concise. Also funny.
The economic struggle of this country was something that i really never paid a significant amount of attention to. Of course, I read about it, absorbed the information and understood it (mostly, kinda sorta) but the real fact was it wasn't really that important to me at the time. I didn't need to know, because it wasn't affecting me that much, and so I was mostly indifferent. With that smooth segway, lets move on to this weeks politics lecture.
I'm a big fan of Empiricism. I didn't know that the term existed before this week, but certainly I was a big fan of the underlying concept well before I knew the definition. The idea that you don't believe in something unless it is available to you sensually (which sounds dodgy) is one that can fit into a world that intends to progress into the future. Empiricism allows experimentation, an idea that seems to be wildy discouraged among the God fearin' members of society, which sadly, still has a very significant impact on today's world. If we were all to embrace Empiricism, in one form or another, and the red tape were to come down, then there is no measure to what the human species could achieve.
This brings me onto a hugely controversial subject regarding experimentation. During my university interview process, I was asked to discuss, with a group, a certain scenario. The general assumption was that this would weed out the weak and ugly, in order to allow the confident and powerful people progress to higher learning, where they would gather the skills needed to rule the world one day maybe. I still think it was to see who was a dick and who wasn't, but that's just me.
The question posed to us in this little debate-a-thon, was simple: "Do you think a screening process to see if an unborn child has down syndrome would be morally viable?"
Now...lets make one thing perfectly clear. I respect, and am a strong supporter, of the rights of disabled people to live, work, and pretty much do whatever they want in the world without being bothered, but my answer came under a lot of scrutiny, when i took in a deep breath, and unleashed my bombshell. "Of course" I had agreed with pre-birth screening. The main reason being that if we can rid future people of these life altering conditions, then why wouldn't we? Why would we stop progress? The one answer that came amidst the gasps was "Because its morally wrong. God wouldn't like it"
Maybe not, but considering I don't believe in him, i think him and I can call it quits.
This is why I like Empiricism. People are able to use these experiments without some justice force telling us the "big guy won't like it".
Basically, "Empiricism leads to the scientific method and empirical method leads to highly effective technological advance"
A good lecture on Empiricism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BC6DNdkt0IU.
It also says stuff about Hume, who as we all know thought of a bit of a step up from Empiricism, with a bit more added assumption.
Next up in the batting cages: A Priori. Buh. BUH. It seems non negotiable. Or rather, half of it seems non negotiable. The half which is concordant with Empiricism, that is to say, provisional ideas. As it were. The trancendent part is a little silly. Mainly because I'm an atheist, and the idea that God might exist is laughable. Therefore, it is always laughable. See what I did? That's A priori right? I could later turn into a religious person, which would be...good?
A good example of A priori reasoning in the press lately would be the furthering of the Guantanamo cases. The idea the geoverment seems to have used is that:
Extremist Muslims attack America
Therefore all Muslims are terrorists
That guy looks like a Muslim
Oh, He is a Muslim
Therefore he is a terrorist.
As for Idealists...well some of them are just plain nuts.
In the second part of the lecture, we focused on the ideas behind economics. A large part of the section was devoted to the Karl Marx contradiction to capitalism. I like Karl Marx. Not because of his ideals, but because his name sounds like Groucho Marx, and that makes me laugh.
Anyway...
Karl Marx had a strategy, that I will lovingly copy and paste from the Winchester Journalism site, simply because it is pretty concise. Also funny.
- WORKER GETS PAID £1 TO PRODUCE A WIDGET
- WIDGET SELLS FOR £2 (THE ‘MARKET PRICE’ – ADAM SMITH)
- CAPITALIST MAKES £1 PROFITCAPITALIST SPENDS THIS ON THE STATE
- CAPITALIST WASTES SOME ON PLATED WIDGETS, TOP HATS, ETC
- CAPITALIST INVESTS SOME IN ANOTHER WIDEGET FACTORY
WORKER GOES TO SHOP TO TRY AND BUY A WIDGET - OH DEAR – WIDGETS COST £2. WORKER ONLY GOT £1 (SEE LINE ONE)
- WIDGET REMAINS UNSOLD – IT’S A WIDGET CRUNCH
- MASS PANICWIDGET FACTORY CLOSES – WIDGET WORKER EVEN MORE ALIENATED
- WIDGET WORKER THROWS OFF DELUSIONS
- VIOLENT REVOLUTION LED BY LOCAL PSYCHOPATH
- CAPITALISTS SHOT DEAD, ETC
- END OF CAPITALIST SYSTEM
- MASSIVE BOOZE UP/TEMPORARY MOMENT OF MISPLACED OPTIMISM
- UNFORTUNATE ANIMAL FARM TYPE SITUATION ENDS BOOZE UP
- CAPITALIST SYSTEM RE-ESTABLISHED UNDER ANOTHER NAME
Now we've all had this friday night.
Monday, 16 February 2009
A Quick Reminder
Evening, Drinkies. After not posting for a while, I feel as though I've let the team down abit, especially since my friend Andrew has bested me in his journalistic ability by posting almost every day, wheras I seem to post once every week. Its not good enough, and rest assured I will be punishing myself severely. I'm not sure how yet, but you can bet it'll involve a whole lot of whips and chains.
And possibly rats. Holy crap, this is scary right?!
Lets move on.
Its recently come to my attention that the BBC website has been doing a very interesting thing, where they put the 5 most-viewed stories of the day on a little chart. How long theyve been doing this for is anyones guess, and im sure the more educated of you out there will know, like the brainiacs you are, and will trump me in a conversation with a mighty "HA" whilst I bow my head in shame and turmoil. Crying will ensue. This (the top five, not the crying) at face value was particuarally interesting, considering the stories involved. It was a real indication of quite how morbidly curious our country (and possibly the world) has become, and how our attention has switched from subjects such as tea, coffee, conversation and knitting a quilt, to the three subjects that all of us read most of all.
Rape, Murder and Child abuse.
It was incredibly twisted. Admittedly, they were shocking stories, and no doubt very important, but with so much going on in todays United Kingdom, the recession, the tax gap, wars, conflicts etc, it seemed weird that the public focused on this. I'm scared of this. It makes me scared. I'm gonna leave this here, because I got off track with a project I'm working on.
CUT SHORT!
And possibly rats. Holy crap, this is scary right?!
Lets move on.
Its recently come to my attention that the BBC website has been doing a very interesting thing, where they put the 5 most-viewed stories of the day on a little chart. How long theyve been doing this for is anyones guess, and im sure the more educated of you out there will know, like the brainiacs you are, and will trump me in a conversation with a mighty "HA" whilst I bow my head in shame and turmoil. Crying will ensue. This (the top five, not the crying) at face value was particuarally interesting, considering the stories involved. It was a real indication of quite how morbidly curious our country (and possibly the world) has become, and how our attention has switched from subjects such as tea, coffee, conversation and knitting a quilt, to the three subjects that all of us read most of all.
Rape, Murder and Child abuse.
It was incredibly twisted. Admittedly, they were shocking stories, and no doubt very important, but with so much going on in todays United Kingdom, the recession, the tax gap, wars, conflicts etc, it seemed weird that the public focused on this. I'm scared of this. It makes me scared. I'm gonna leave this here, because I got off track with a project I'm working on.
CUT SHORT!
Tuesday, 10 February 2009
Luke Hates You All
Or at least, according to Aristotle, I should. This information is some that is pondered by scholars and intellectuals, and considering I'm neither, and that right now I'm listening to Warren Zevon, this truth is not so self evident. The barbarian concept put forward by Aristotle suggested that the state should be ruled by enlightened men, indeed men that are Philosopher kings, athletes, politicians, thinkers, rulers, all of which do not describe the current UK administration. Take a look, we are in the middle of one of the biggest recessions in a long time, and we are still engaged in an illegal war. Even the new president of the united states is angry at us, and considering he seems to be quite a nice and generous fellow, perhaps we should think of this as a bad sign.
Still, as has been discussed, our current political system is much better than the Babylonian technique of all powerful emperors, or "God Kings" as they are more commonly know, and personally I believe Cromwell did us a favour by creating a Parliament. Democracy will be something i will always defend, to the point where i am threatened with torture, where i will probably say "alright, I guess totalitarian or monarchy is a better method. Did i mention I'm pure British and not at all a little bit Irish. You don't need to check that..."
I'm not sure that'll hold up in front of a modern day Hitler, with his incredible amount of rage for people who aren't "German". It sure is a shame that didn't work. Boy howdy. I mean, who would have thought people would have not accepted that?! Man, damn.
Personally, I'm for whoever can create a state of equal people and lack of poverty. But that's not going to happen, so in the meantime, I say lets all try the Darwin theory. Everyone who is insubstantial, that is to say, idiotic, in this day and age, will slowly be weaned out like an insufferable noise in a spa, and we will all accept the incredible power of evolution in order to continue the species.
God is dead, as Nietzsche said, but we didn't kill him, he was already dead.
Rock on motherfuckers.
Politics Blog #1
Still, as has been discussed, our current political system is much better than the Babylonian technique of all powerful emperors, or "God Kings" as they are more commonly know, and personally I believe Cromwell did us a favour by creating a Parliament. Democracy will be something i will always defend, to the point where i am threatened with torture, where i will probably say "alright, I guess totalitarian or monarchy is a better method. Did i mention I'm pure British and not at all a little bit Irish. You don't need to check that..."
I'm not sure that'll hold up in front of a modern day Hitler, with his incredible amount of rage for people who aren't "German". It sure is a shame that didn't work. Boy howdy. I mean, who would have thought people would have not accepted that?! Man, damn.
Personally, I'm for whoever can create a state of equal people and lack of poverty. But that's not going to happen, so in the meantime, I say lets all try the Darwin theory. Everyone who is insubstantial, that is to say, idiotic, in this day and age, will slowly be weaned out like an insufferable noise in a spa, and we will all accept the incredible power of evolution in order to continue the species.
God is dead, as Nietzsche said, but we didn't kill him, he was already dead.
Rock on motherfuckers.
Politics Blog #1
Friday, 16 January 2009
Secondly...more profanity
What the fuuuuuuuuuuck?!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmosis_Jones
For a person who studied biology, this movie is awesome and horrifying for some reason.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmosis_Jones
For a person who studied biology, this movie is awesome and horrifying for some reason.
Sunday, 11 January 2009
Re-writes Needed
I am here once again supply you with a healthy dose of Luke Garratt. It has been a while. Lets all of us look at the TV this season, and applaud stupidity, once again, as though it were the last time. Strap in. Strap in to the ever-crashing car of as-aired television.
Celebrity Big Brother (Channel 4)
What a surprise. Its back and its more innocuous than ever. Children, come crowd around the strangers, as we watch them sleep, eat and drink from their pathetic lives. Well, I say that, but this series seems to have some quite interesting characters. And by interesting, I mean, clowns. From a circus. The startling thing is that the assortment of people in the house actually does represent a circus of sorts, the type of thing you'd find touring around rural french towns in the 1900's. The select members that I have researched on the fantastic medium of THE INTERNET show that as a human being I cannot explain their purpose in life. But I will try my best in the next paragraph or so.
Let's start with with the unflappable ULRIKA JONSSON. The only way I can remember ULRIKA JONSSON is a small episode of a reality show in the vein of a "home makeover show" where children were asked to make amends to their parents houses, with their sticky hands pawing over blueprints of such monstrosities as an "Austin Powers Room". Needless to say, I'm sure these children were murdered. The next candidate is one LUCY PINDER. I believe that she was evicted on DAY 8, and I'm fairly sure this was either her incredibly right-wing politics. Whilst this proved that indeed she did have something in her brain apart from air, unfortunately a secondary conclusion had to be drawn. Imagine an apple...no, imagine an orange, with a shiny peel, it looks appetising, but having been left so long, to stew and ferment, the contents within the shiny husk is nothing but bitter, seed filled, dry pulp. Also, I'm sure that LUCY PINDER cannot be discerned from a pencil with two tits attached in a lineup, and no one wants a lady who looks like a criminal pencil in a lineup. Next up, VERNE TROYER. Simply small. Just so unfeasibly, horrifyingly small that one cannot fathom how he ever came into being.
The deal with the latest series of BIG BROTHER is the deal that's been with every other previous incarnation of the show. I will hate it, as will many of you, but that's just life. There will always be those who love it, and after about 8 years of having prime time ruled by it in the months that its on, the format has rarely ever changed, so the likelihood is, I'll never like it. THE END.
Spooks (BBC One)
Once again THE INTERNET has provided me with more information than I require, but I have decided to write about this program simply because I had three episodes taped that I did not remember that I had taped. Episodes 2, 4 and 8 (the finale) were the only ones available to me, and yet, I think I can say I've seen all I need to. But I crave more. The thing with Spooks is that it's simply different. Different in a way that most audiences would deem "bad" or even "boring". The style of the entire show is different to every spy medium, and I believe for a very simple reason. It doesn't talk down. It doesn't even talk on the level, but it talks up.
It assumes you know all about these protocols within the secret service. An example is the "Total Deniability" protocol, that seems to be laboured and lauded in every spy movie, book or TV show. There is usually a speech and a "God damn it sir, no" but Spooks deals with this sort of thing in a much more professional way, dealing with these little cliches in a concise manner, so that the seem organic and real. Anyway, I love it, Highly recommend it to any of you who have been living in a cave for 6 years, and I want to see more. Of the series, not of the cave.
Demons (ITV 2)
Huuuuuuuuh. Well. Hm. I had trouble with this. The idea behind is that of VAN HELSING (the guy who talked to Dracula for a while before doing...something) and for the most part it does it alright. The cast consists of a child that looks strangely familiar despite very few credentials, a girl who also looks strangely familiar despite the same vices, and Philip Glenister who is forced to do an American accent...for some reason. The show centers around the boy actor, playing "Luke" is the last decedent of VAN HELSING, and he is tasked with saving people with the help of his American godfather, and his not-girlfriend, and a blind girl in...a...big library? Oh for gods sake, its ridiculous. The main arch-villain of the first episode is supposed to be fearsome because of one thing, a nose prosthetic. Is ITV2 saying that we need to kill all those with a prosthetic nose, indeed, all people wearing prosthetics of any kind, as though they are demons from the deep, dark reaches of hell? Perhaps. But more likely, they're saying "Look, ninja kid guys wheeeeeeeee, you too can be a social outcast with supernatural powers!
...Next up, Jordan and Peter: The sodding never ending story. The tits."
Also, Buffy did it already. Idiots.
Celebrity Big Brother (Channel 4)
What a surprise. Its back and its more innocuous than ever. Children, come crowd around the strangers, as we watch them sleep, eat and drink from their pathetic lives. Well, I say that, but this series seems to have some quite interesting characters. And by interesting, I mean, clowns. From a circus. The startling thing is that the assortment of people in the house actually does represent a circus of sorts, the type of thing you'd find touring around rural french towns in the 1900's. The select members that I have researched on the fantastic medium of THE INTERNET show that as a human being I cannot explain their purpose in life. But I will try my best in the next paragraph or so.
Let's start with with the unflappable ULRIKA JONSSON. The only way I can remember ULRIKA JONSSON is a small episode of a reality show in the vein of a "home makeover show" where children were asked to make amends to their parents houses, with their sticky hands pawing over blueprints of such monstrosities as an "Austin Powers Room". Needless to say, I'm sure these children were murdered. The next candidate is one LUCY PINDER. I believe that she was evicted on DAY 8, and I'm fairly sure this was either her incredibly right-wing politics. Whilst this proved that indeed she did have something in her brain apart from air, unfortunately a secondary conclusion had to be drawn. Imagine an apple...no, imagine an orange, with a shiny peel, it looks appetising, but having been left so long, to stew and ferment, the contents within the shiny husk is nothing but bitter, seed filled, dry pulp. Also, I'm sure that LUCY PINDER cannot be discerned from a pencil with two tits attached in a lineup, and no one wants a lady who looks like a criminal pencil in a lineup. Next up, VERNE TROYER. Simply small. Just so unfeasibly, horrifyingly small that one cannot fathom how he ever came into being.
The deal with the latest series of BIG BROTHER is the deal that's been with every other previous incarnation of the show. I will hate it, as will many of you, but that's just life. There will always be those who love it, and after about 8 years of having prime time ruled by it in the months that its on, the format has rarely ever changed, so the likelihood is, I'll never like it. THE END.
Spooks (BBC One)
Once again THE INTERNET has provided me with more information than I require, but I have decided to write about this program simply because I had three episodes taped that I did not remember that I had taped. Episodes 2, 4 and 8 (the finale) were the only ones available to me, and yet, I think I can say I've seen all I need to. But I crave more. The thing with Spooks is that it's simply different. Different in a way that most audiences would deem "bad" or even "boring". The style of the entire show is different to every spy medium, and I believe for a very simple reason. It doesn't talk down. It doesn't even talk on the level, but it talks up.
It assumes you know all about these protocols within the secret service. An example is the "Total Deniability" protocol, that seems to be laboured and lauded in every spy movie, book or TV show. There is usually a speech and a "God damn it sir, no" but Spooks deals with this sort of thing in a much more professional way, dealing with these little cliches in a concise manner, so that the seem organic and real. Anyway, I love it, Highly recommend it to any of you who have been living in a cave for 6 years, and I want to see more. Of the series, not of the cave.
Demons (ITV 2)
Huuuuuuuuh. Well. Hm. I had trouble with this. The idea behind is that of VAN HELSING (the guy who talked to Dracula for a while before doing...something) and for the most part it does it alright. The cast consists of a child that looks strangely familiar despite very few credentials, a girl who also looks strangely familiar despite the same vices, and Philip Glenister who is forced to do an American accent...for some reason. The show centers around the boy actor, playing "Luke" is the last decedent of VAN HELSING, and he is tasked with saving people with the help of his American godfather, and his not-girlfriend, and a blind girl in...a...big library? Oh for gods sake, its ridiculous. The main arch-villain of the first episode is supposed to be fearsome because of one thing, a nose prosthetic. Is ITV2 saying that we need to kill all those with a prosthetic nose, indeed, all people wearing prosthetics of any kind, as though they are demons from the deep, dark reaches of hell? Perhaps. But more likely, they're saying "Look, ninja kid guys wheeeeeeeee, you too can be a social outcast with supernatural powers!
...Next up, Jordan and Peter: The sodding never ending story. The tits."
Also, Buffy did it already. Idiots.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
