out the snow
We’ll keep you warm,
we’ll clear the edges"
maybe if the global timeline’s less cluttered we’ll start to focus more on what’s happening in front of our noses. If it’s relatively quiet, David Cameron is likely to start getting it in the neck. If anyone has benefited from an action-packed year, it’s him. Every time the shit was about to hit the fan for Cameron in 2011, something spectacular happened somewhere else on the map and he somehow managed to slip away unscathed during the commotion. It’s as though no-one genuinely believes he’s responsible for anything, in much the same way as no-one seems to blame Ant and Dec for shoving cockroaches up Fatima Whitbread’s nose because they’re merely the frontmen…
…I wouldn’t be surprised to discover Cameron has been making all this news up: he’s paying the media to run entirely fictional stories to distract us whenever he cocks up – just like the fictional military campaign in Wag the Dog but with a bit more variety. If that’s the case, then I have a newfound respect for the prime minister: he has a vivid imagination. That nuclear reactor thing in Japan was a bold move…."
— Charlie Brooker : The Guardian
BACHMANN: Well, No. 1, all of us as Americans have the same rights. The same civil rights. And so that’s really what government’s role is, to protect our civil rights. There shouldn’t be any special rights or special set of criteria based upon people’s preferences. We all have the same civil rights.
JANE SCHMIDT: Then, why can’t same-sex couples get married?
"BACHMANN: They can get married, but they abide by the same law as everyone else. They can marry a man if they’re a woman. Or they can marry a woman if they’re a man.
JANE SCHMIDT: Why can’t a man marry a man?
BACHMANN: Because that’s not the law of the land.
JANE SCHMIDT: So heterosexual couples have a privilege.
BACHMANN: No, they have the same opportunity under the law. There is no right to same-sex marriage.
JANE SCHMIDT: So you won’t support the LGBT community?
BACHMANN: No, I said that there are no special rights for people based upon your sex practices. There’s no special rights based upon what you do in your sex life. You’re an American citizen first and foremost and that’s it.”
It’s really hard to understand how someone believes that allowing same-sex marriage would ‘privilege’ them. It disgusts me. Marriage is about love, yet the laws which surround them only serve to incite hate.
What are people so scared of? It seems bizarre to me that everyday we witness dramatic technological innovation and progress, our world is constantly changing and evolving and yet, underlying this, there still remains a stubborn conservatism that prevents us from taking the major steps to progress socially.
There was a time when people thought that if they boarded a train moving at 30mph their body would literally explode. 16th century concerns of moral decay and hysteria culminated into quite ridiculous witchhunts. My point is that our concerns seem terribly antiquated. Nuclear warfare actually exists for goodness sake, people have the ability to literally destroy the entire world, and yet people seem to place all their fear in social “order”.
It makes me really angry to read remarks like those made in the point above, in fact, it makes me really fucking sad. We’re all people. Instead of constantly trying to define the ‘self’ again the ‘other’ and looking for ways to differentiate between certain social ‘groups’, why can we not recognise what we all have in common : we’re all human, we all have the ability to love, we should all have the right to express that.
Rather typically, anger has inspired me to once again put fingers to keyboards after a quiet spell on tumblr.
I’m about to be one of those moaning internet bloggers for five minutes. I’ll try to post something artsy-fartsy afterwards, or something astoundingly hilarious. Failing that i’ll just reblog a mildly amusing meme like everyone does….
In a piece about ‘feminist’ reaction to the two awful Topman Tshirts, (you know the ones, the really misogynistic ones, the one’s full of ‘LAD’ banter, you know, Oh wait you’re right, that’s ALL of them, but remember the two that likened women to dogs and might have suggested that there’s always an excuse for domestic violence, well we’re talking about those ones) Brendan O’Neil (telegraph) named his article ‘Why are feminists getting their knickers in a twist about Topman T-shirts?’. I hoped, upon stumbling across this title, that the article which followed would rightly explain why these T-shirts caused such a stir -namely that it made such derogatory ‘banter’ a worrying part of normal day-to-day life, thus making his title rather witty- directly drawing attention to the danger of a casual sexist behavior developing.
But no. Brandon was not being witty or ironic. He instead went on to claim that the reason feminists were angry was because feminists
“are driven by the elitist belief that there are some people out there (whisper it: working-class lads) who cannot distinguish right from wrong and therefore must have their eyes and ears protected from poisonous words”.
How a man can get so confused as to honestly suggest the feminist movement is secretly about class, and not gender at all, is quite ridiculous.
It’s more worrying that Brendon doesn’t realise that he himself, evidently middle class from his profession, doesn’t realise that he might be the feminists problem, since it’s just those ‘working class’ men the feminists don’t like. It says far more about Brandon’s own ideas of social classes than it ever does about the feminist.
He hasn’t realised that his commentary is exactly why feminists are angry.
What a posh, snobbish, sexist git.
A show about pastry, pies, cakes and biscuits, will almost always score high on my tele viewing. The Great British Bake Off.
A show about pastry, pies, cakes and biscuits, will almost always score high on my tele viewing.
The Great British Bake Off.
Please Note: This is NOT a review, it’s a rant.
First of all, I think it is vital to point out that the only reason I went to see the film ‘One day’ is because i read and loved the book. I do not like rom-coms, in fact i despise almost all ‘Hollywood’ romances. Consequently, I was acutely aware of the distinct possibility of disliking the film. (Un)Fortunately having grown up in a household where trash TV, rom-coms and ITV game shows have swamped my living room TV screen, I have built up quite the tolerance for TV shows and films i do not enjoy. I can bare ‘this morning’ (some might even accuse me of enjoying it on rare occasions- a claim I neither deny nor admit to), I can [only just] tolerate ‘legally blonde’. I have even just recently learned how to sit through an entire 15 minutes of Loose Women without literally pulling out bits of hair or bursting into tears at the idoiocy and human error displayed on a show which appears to brand itself as a light hearted ‘woman’s hour’, which I in fact believe is a sad but nonetheless important display of skewed social priorities and human faults. The show feels apocalyptic in the sense that every time I watch it, i’m genuinely frightened that i might wake up tomorrow and the world is like loose women. If i had the opportunity to form my own government, i’d use a five minute snipped of these so-called ‘loose women’ to highlight the necessity to impose my ‘liberal dictatorship manifesto’ immediately before the whole of humanity slides into an irrecoverable state of stupidity.
Ok, so maybe i’ve veered slightly off track, but it was necessary to prove my point that, despite a high tolerance of utter trite on Tv and in films, i surprised even myself when i left the cinema before ‘One Day’ had even finished.
It became almost immediately obvious that a purely literary device- returning to the story just one day a year - does not translate well to cinema. This, however, was the very least of its problems. The acting was amazingly shocking. No really, i was genuinely AMAZED at how rigid, awkward, and stifled the acting was, the characters of Dextor and Emma seemed as if they had just met each other for the first time in every scene. It was just awkward and didn’t convey the close, intimate and natural friendship that was evident in the novel between them.
Ugh. I knew things were going to be bad when the scene started with music which sounded like it belonged to a 70’s american soap opera about posh-and-rural New England, USA, coupled with a swirly font title taken straight from word-processor (quite possibly ‘french script’)
I left the cinema about half way through (and we only stayed this long because there were so many awkward silences in the film and i had taken some rather loud rustly bags, that we had to choose our moment wisely so as not to disturb the other 4 or so people in the cinema, although i question their motives for staying, and perhaps even believe our walk out may have sparked a mass walkout afterwards, it’s what i like to think happened at any rate. Whoever didn’t leave had probably slipped into a comma, perhaps even self-induced to make the pain go away and the minutes pass quicker).
The only thing i regret is that i didn’t stay long enough to see Anne Hathaway die and Jim Sturgess cry his silly posh tears out, who can only cry using the infamous tweezers-in-the trouser-pocket-with-the-hole method and presumably is only capable of crying out gold, dollar bills, or his own sexual fluids. He’s that robotic, horrid, and overwhelmingly in love with himself.
I hated it so much i cannot stop thinking about it. Like those awful songs that you hate but can’t help yourself from singing, Anne Hathaways ridiculous dumb face is ingrained, no, burnt or scratched, into my brain. So much so, it still hurts even though the physical scars have long since faded. I don’t even want to talk about it anymore, it just hurts.
I just want to save anyone from having to experience what i experienced on a cold monday afternoon, and quite possibly changed my life forever- it was the day i saw quite literally the worst film ever.