One whole month of listening to political bullshite, great. As if the news was not full of enough drivel as it is, we now have the fun of being informed what the political parties want to (but never will) implement if they get into/stay in power.
I have got to the point that I am really past caring. As far as I am concerned they are all useless at anything constructive apart from bitching at each other, scamming as much money as they can for themselves to fill their already bulging wallets, and spouting lots of hot air.
Not to mention there are only really two choices for the voting public - Labour or Conservative. The Liberal Democrats always seem the better option of the three main protagonists, but a vote for them is basically a wasted vote, just as it is for any of the other minor parties (and a vote for the BNP? That just has the need to be seen by a shrink. Please). I hear all the protestations of 'we will vote for 'x' party and show the big boys that we do not like what they stand for', but do I think they really give a shit? Nope, not if they are the ones who win. Why would they?
So, Tory or Labour? Not much of a choice really. I guess it will boil down to who I really do not want to see running this country for the next five years, and vote for the other.
Not particularly enchanted with any of them at the moment thanks to the DEB being shoved through at a rate of knots. I wonder how long it will be before we lose youtube in this country? Not to mention a whole host of other sites thanks to this oppressive piece of shite legislation, google possibly included or any search engine for that matter. I guess it means that UK internet users are just going to find the equivalent of such sites that are based abroad. So nice of this twats-with-out-a-clue to push through laws that will destroy the internet for the casual user, while the main people they want to stop already know ways round the bill. Therefore it is yet another law that adds to our evolving nanny state, punishing the lightweights, while the hardcore, persistent offenders are free to carry on regardless.
So, move along, nothing has changed here...
Election 2010
No surprise here.
Is there anyone out there that is genuinely shocked that Jon Venables has committed another heinous offence? If so, why?
Anyone who can kill a toddler in the way he and Robert Thompson did, at the age they were, has to have something very wrong going on inside.
I mean, why a child? A domestic pet I could just about understand - through curosity - but another human being? Even at that age they would have known that killing anything was wrong, so to go for a life of the highest rated species on this planet? Surely they knew how bad what they were doing was, I cannot for one instant believe they did not.
I have always been convinced that it was only a matter of time that one, if not both, would strike again in some way. And here we are. Well done to the government clowns that let this happen by releasing them from prison after just eight years. And not even prison at that, just juvy. Here is the prime reason why they should have gone to prison and spent more time inside. Nevermind that they could have learnt more bad ways while inside (you are trying to tell me that they would not have learnt enough already anyay?), a taste of real prison may have scared them enough that they would not have wanted to go back. Ever. But no, the psychologists knew best, they were rehabilitated and ready to go free. Rehabilitated my arse. No one that sick, at that age is ever going to be truly rehabilitated. That is going to be in there for life. It seems some people are just born evil, it just usually takes more time to come to light.
So if it is true that Venables has been sent back to prison over child porn offences, who is going to take the blame for this? We are never going to know the full extent of what he has done this time, just like we did not last time, because it, apparently, is not 'in the public interest'. No? Then in whose is it? We are the ones that could have been living next door to him for the last eight years. I wonder if the families of the new victims know? I bet they do not.
Those two boys should have been told upon release that if they messed up and were returned to prison, that they would not get another new identity, that they would have to live with the consequences. The amount of money wasted on giving them new identities is just galling. Not that it would matter much in Venables case if the papers are to be believed and he has been telling people who he really is. If he has been doing that then he is obviously not all there, and still a very broken individual.
Never mind casting him back behind bars, a padded cell might be a better permanent home.
Definition of a Genius
According to thefreedictionary.com:
gen-ius
1.
a. Extraordinary intellectual and creative power.
b. A person of extraordinary intellect and talent: "One is not born a genius, one becomes a genius" (Simone de Beauvoir).
c. A person who has an exceptionally high intelligence quotient, typically above 140.
2.
a. A strong natural talent, aptitude, or inclination: has a genius for choosing the right words.
b. One who has such a talent or inclination: a genius at diplomacy.
3. The prevailing spirit or distinctive character, as of a place, a person, or an era: the genius of Elizabethan England.
4. pl. ge·ni·i (jn-) Roman Mythology A tutelary deity or guardian spirit of a person or place.
5. A person who has great influence over another.
I was shocked the other week to learn of the death of Alexander McQueen. I cannot say I was a dedicated fan of his work, but I knew that he was a major talent in the fashion industry, let alone the British field. His passing is a tremendous loss, and we are fortunate that his legacy of creativity will stand for many years.
He was proof positive that the University route into the field is not necessarily the only path towards being a designer, and that apprenticeships are also an option (it is probably a better way considering what is mooted to be the distinct lack of quality teaching in some such establishments throughout the UK at the moment). Why bother spending 3/4 years in education learning a trade when it's virtually impossible to get even a half-decent job at the end of it without any kind of hands-on work experience? And even if you do manage to land employment, you can guarantee that it will be working pretty much from dogsbody upwards (unless you escape abroad where they tend to appreciate more those graduates who have specialised in one area). It seems that an apprenticeship is a much more sensible idea these days; not only do you get paid while you're learning, you are actually acquiring the skills you need to work, rather being taught very little while getting hugely in debt.
The advent of McQueen's demise has brought about a media frenzy of quotes from admirers, fans and friends, which now seems to be habitual in this current world of OTT public mournings since the death of Diana, Princess of Wales. But it seems that not everyone agreed with those that chose to label McQueen a 'genius'. Toby Young's blog in The Times was poorly judged as to be seen fit for release only one day after the end of the designer's life and, quite rightly, got the backlash it deserved considering the comments left below the piece, not to mention making himself a trending topic in the twitterverse. Whatever opinions Young has upon his brief association with the late designer, and the fashion industry as a whole, they really did not need to be broadcast when his body was barely cold. Yes, the now routine out-pouring of public emotion is becoming slightly repellent, but to cast aspersions on the talent (or in this case the supposed lack of talent) of a person so very recently deceased was in pretty poor taste.
Young writes that he is skeptical about the term "genius" being used to describe him, and insinuates his death is not important enough to warrant such media coverage. In the greater scheme of the universe it is probably not, yet he starts by saying that the amount of press McQueen's death has received one would have thought that someone like Oscar Wilde or Jimi Hendrix had just left this mortal coil. In doing so, he immediately stated what he considers important and unimportant; momentous = literature and music, trivial = fashion. Unfortunately the fashion industry has been the butt of much derision for some time in the UK - people seem to forget how much money is involved in this field, not to mention the amount of jobs it creates - and so it is passed off as whimsical, fluffy and of no real consequence. And maybe it is to some, just like music, fine art, and literature is to others.
But what is really vexing in his article is this:
"It took a while, but I finally realised that there’s no such thing as talent in fashion — at least, not in the sense in which it’s normally understood. Unlike literature or music, it simply isn’t clear which designer has talent and which hasn’t...But after working in fashion for several years, I realised that “taste” is just a euphemism for the collective wisdom of the fashion elite."
Excuse me? There is 'no such thing as talent in fashion'? Is he joking or just incredibly obtuse when he surmises that it is only in fashion that a self-appointed hierarchy decide who has this 'talent' and who does not? Does this not happen in virtually every other field too? Do the book publishers not decide whose work gets printed and who does not? Do the music labels and magazines not decide is who 'now' and who is past it? Does Young's idea of 'talent' in music only encompass who he believes sounds pleasant to his ears? As there are many 'artists' out there who only sound good because they have been hugely 'tweaked' in the studio, that may be able to hold a note for a few songs while performing live, though who cannot conduct an entire performance with resorting to backing tracks and miming, and do not write the material for which they are famous, yet they are lauded as great talents by the self-appointed gurus of that particular field. How is this so very different to the conjecture that he is laying at the door of the fashion industry? Yes, there are greater and lesser talents in that trade, just as there are in every other. Will he write a similar type of vitriol when someone like Elton John or Madonna passes away, or is it just his perceived personal treatment within the fashion world, at the hand of McQueen in particular it seems, that has sparked this ill-timed outburst?
To go back to the beginning of this blog and read the definitions of a genius (although, to my knowledge, it has never been said what IQ he had), McQueen could easily be illustrated by many of those descriptions for the term. Even if some cannot do it now, in years to come his legacy will be seen for what it is and the phrase rightly utilised in connection with him, as McQueen WILL be sorely missed. Not only by his family for the person he was, but for his creativity as well as his ability to push the boundaries of de rigeur in his ideas and how they were presented to the world.
RIP Lee Alexander McQueen.
Random reasons why I love the UK
Night-time on the Southbank
Day-time on the Southbank
The Pretty
The Old
The Art
The Heritage
The Humour
The Adventurous?
And the bizarre...
I guess...
this blog is hopefully going to take over from O'rly, and this time I will try to keep posting.
Seeing how I rediscovered that blog and realised I've done nothing on it for a year *oops*
This is an attempt to keep myself writing/thinking and not entirely disappearing into a couch potato physically and mentally.
*Disclaimer: I did say attempt*