My anger at the Tory government suddenly got even deeper. I just came across this Huffington post article revealing that George Osbourne was in talks with slimeball in chief Rupert Murdoch before he announced cuts to the BBC. If true using one’s position in government to favour on company over another is clearly corruption, and Osbourne should lose his job for it. I know the beeb isn’t perfect, but if you ask me, it’s one of the best broadcasters on earth. It’s certainly better than the commercial alternative. The tories wanted it cut because it does not fit in with their greed-based worldview; Murdoch wanted it cut because it supplied an alternative to his propaganda. It shouldn’t be surprising that the two slimeballs got together to wreck a great organisation. Like the NHS, the BBC supplies a brilliant service for all irrespective of one’s ability to pay, and that’s something greedy, selfish gits like Osbourne and Murdoch cannot abide.
Yesterday afternoon Lyn and I watched this quite interesting documentary about Multiverse Theory. I must say it appealed to me. I hadn’t heard much about it before, but to me, the idea of universes outside of our own seems to be quite logical. As the program itself admits, the theory isn’t without it’s detractors, but it is gaining traction. However, it left me with a small question I’d just like to pose on here: if there are billions more universes outside our own, would that not explain why the universe is expanding? Presumably each universe has gravity, so they would draw other universes towards each other. Would that not solve the problem of expansion currently bugging cosmologists, or am I missing something? Answers i comments please,
Mind you, if multverse theory is correct, an extra verse will have to be added to this song.
Everyone will be quite aware of what is going on down in dover and the human tragedy unfolding there. Thousands of people desparate to get to the UK are risking their lives, trying to get on to trains to come through the channel tunnel. Of course, we, as a modern, tolerant nation should be helping such people. What pisses me off is when the bbc give twits like Nigel farage airtime to speak on the subject. He was just on the Victoria Derbyshire show, and as usual had me shouting at the tv: blaming everyone else for this ‘problem’, trying to come across as reasonable while any intelligent person could detect the undercurrent of xenophobia in what he was saying. These people need our help, but our tv screens are polluted by bigots like farage, lying his head off about his car being surrounded by immigrants in calais, and trying to poke fun at ‘the human rights brigade’ – presumably people capable of thought. People like Farage are the problem, not migrants; I’m appalled that the bbc called on him to talk on this issue – such bigotry only makes thing worse.
I’m still quite interested in olympic news. It seems to me that being chosen to host the olympics is the greatest accolade a city can get, and acts as a status symbol for a city and a country. I also take an interest in travel, different places etc. as well as international relations. That’s why I’ve been following news of the olympic bidding process, and last night I was surprised to read that the USOC has pulled the plug on Boston’s bid for the 2024 olympics. Of course, when you look into it that entire bid was mired from the off: it never had public support above 50%, and there was all sorts of trouble about the use of public money. The campaign group, ‘No Boston Olympics’, is reportedly celebrating, but that strikes me as odd: yes public money can now be used on other things, but why celebrate your city remaining normal. Hosting the olympics marks a city’s entry onto the world stage – great cites, world cities, host the games. Gaining the worlds attention means you are noticed, and you join the ranks of Paris, London, Beijing and so on. World centres of art and culture: Places where films are made and set, where songs are written and where epic ceremonies are performed. If you have any sense of pride in your city, you would be eager for it to host such an event. (Of course, I only came to this view after 2012). Of course, a city can be a world city without hosting the games, New York being a good example; yet surely being chosen to host the worlds biggest sporting and cultural event marks a city as special. For Boston to withdraw, then, means it has chosen to remain normal – just a normal, unremarkable city. That’s why there’s a tone of regret in this Boston Globe article. Yes bostonians save their money, but the city Boston could have become had it hosted the games will never be, and part of me can’t help but brand them ‘losers’.
Now the USOC will likely put forward a bid for Los Angeles. LA is already a great World city; it’s residents certainly have the cajones to host the games. Mind you, all this is moot anyway as I’m pretty sure the IOC will choose Paris to host the 2024 games. After the upset of 2005, and given that 2024 will mark the centenary of the last Paris olympics, it seems to me that the IOC has little choice but to go with the french capital. I suspect the americans know this, and therefore put in a moreor-less token bid from Boston. The interesting thing is, if they now go with LA, could they be setting themselves up for another disappointment of the magnitude of the rejection of New York or Chicago? On the other hand, given that LA could indeed be an enticing prospect for the IOC, might the competition now be closer than it would have been? Could we now be on track for another upset a la 2005? Knowing the pride americans place in their cities, not to mention the pride the French place in their capital, I find the dynamics of this process quite fascinating.
I thinkI’ve mentioned on here before that Lyn is quite a big apple fan. This morning, before L got up, I came across a trailer for a new biopic of steve Jobs. Assuming she would be interested, I told er abut it when she rose; but rather than keen Lyn seemed totally uninterested. “”So?” she said ”It’s just a film.” Her reaction took me aback: to me, nothing is ever ”just a film”. Cinema is the archetypal art-form of our age; it cannot be ignored. I went into one on my arty-farty huffs and retreated to my sofa. A few minutes later, I realised lyn was right: after all, to a large extent this film is merely an attempt to make money from the late Jobs. It might have a few interesting things to say about him, but ultimately it has nothing to do with him or his computers, which is ultimately what interests Lyn. And besides, whether it’s directed by Danny Boyle or not, looking at the trailer, this film looks shit.
I saw my family yesterday – nearly all of it, on my mum’s side. It was my grandmother’s birthday, so Dom and I went up to north London for a family get together. Mum, Dad, my brothers and their wives were there, as were my aunts, uncles, and all but one of my cousins. It was a great afternoon, sat in the garden of our old family house. Yaiya seemed to really enjoy it, as did her great-grandchildren: Marianna, Christina’s daughter, is teething, and my nephew oliver is becoming quite a little explorer. It was great to watch him toddle around the very garden I remember toddling around thirty years ago. We spent most of the time chatting, eating, and catching up; and all too soon it was time to start heading back. There was cake, photos were taken, and suddenly we were saying goodbye. It was great to see everyone, especially the children, and I hope the next family gathering is not too far away. Looking over my shoulder as we headed back towards the tube station, my family disappearing into the distance, felt a bit sad, but oh well, it had been a great afternoon.
Happy birthday Yiaya!
It seems that I was right about the opening of the Spy Who Loved Me. Yesterday I came across this quite interesting fansite, Den Of Geek, and found an article ranking the best James Bond opening sequences. What was at the top? Why, my own favourite cinematic Bond moment. It just goes to show, I think, that there’s something special about that moment in film; about the image of a parachute emblazoned with the union flag. I used to think it was something personal to me, and in my Masters thesis I write about it in terms of why it could appeal to a guy with a disability, but it seems it is a moment which captivates almost everyone. After all, out of all the ways to transport the queen to the 2012 olympic opening ceremony, Danny Boyle chose to echo that parachute jump in his famous sequence. There is something in that image which thrills us all – not just it’s patriotism, but something about clutching victory from the jaws of defeat, about prevailing when all seems lost.
I think I’ll just flag this bbc 3 program up today, a fascinating insight into disability hate crime. While there’s not much I feel I can say about it, I agree with most of the conclusions it draws. Disability hate crime is a hugely neglected phenomenon: depending on how you define it, you’d be surprised how much discrimination I face every day. Most of it is low level, such as kids staring to inaccessible shops, so I just let it slide. Perhaps I should take more notice and try to do something about it. I’m glad, though, that this program a leat started to look at it and bring it to everyone’s attention.
How much longer do we have to put up with this group of tory scumbags ruling over us? Coming in from my daily stroll, I stumbled over this Mirror article laying bare the shocking arrogance of Iain Duncan-Smith and his deputy. They refuse to publish the figures on how many people have died due to DWP cuts. It has been established beyond doubt that these cuts have driven hundreds if not thousands to suicide, yet, instead of apologising, IDS accuses Labour of ‘scaremongering’. They refuse point blank to release the figures and maintain that they somehow have nothing to hide and are in the right. Knowing the suffering the tories are causing, and having to put up with their dismisive ”we know best” attitude, as if these scumbags have some innate right to impose their views on us, is getting too much for me to stomach.
Poor Lyn had something of a rude awakening this morning. As soon as I got to my computer, I started squealing like a little kid – the new Bond trailer had been released. I know I shouldn’t just advertise adverts on here, but this has me quite excited. If it is anything to go by – and, of course, one should always be cautious of judging a film by it’s trailer – this film will be a blinder. What interests me most is that it appears to pick up on a few past Bond conventions: the 007 franchise has now become so big it can now go back into it’s own history and revisit itself. In many respects it functions more like it’s own genre than an ordinary series or franchise, occupying a unique cultural niche. Thus I detect hints of Live and Let Die in this trailer, as well as intriguing echoes of the theme from On Her Majesty’s secret Service; and of course, the very name Spectre harks back to classic bond. All bodes well then, although we’ll have to wait until late October to find out whether these promising ingredients make for a good film. Going back into the franchise’s own history in this way could be a risky tactic; I hope Sam Mendes handles it as well as we know he can.