*clears throat nervously*
now is probably one of the only acceptable situations to use this emoticon (shudder..)- ://
awks.
sorry i haven't written for sooo long. I have been (attempting) to juggle choosing A levels- who would've thought that 4 subjects could be the source of so much stress? I've also been a little caught up with deciding whether I ought to be thinking about finishing Miss Nobody. And i have gone with no. not yet, at least. I think i can probably squeeze a little out of it yet... And, of course, i have been dabbling my toe in my other blog- written alongside the delightful Daisy Chamberlain (aka: fringed and fabulous)- which has been... liberating..... but a little distracting.... sowwwy....
SO with all that said and done it is time for the matter in hand: a blog post.
How do i write these again?
shit.
Today, what promised to be a somewhat dull and greige-tinged citizenship lesson (what fun), took a turn for the better- scratch that.. it took a U-turn for the better- when my deputy head decided that instead of watching us continue to scrawl out mindless, patronising drivel about what elements of politics we think affect us (the premise being that first we write down "GCSEs", "Tuition fees" and "Boris Bikes", get bored or stumped or stuck, think no more and then scribble out "idk" in pink highlighter and then we write an article next lesson on one of these things.) on a mind map with no passion, no enthusiasm, no interest and certainly no answers because, guess what, no one has asked the 15 year olds any questions... surprise surprise.... instead thought that he would actually engage us in debate. radical.
He got up an article on social mobility and asked us whether we really thought our government was representative of the diversity within our society, whether we thought we could ever really be part of it as state-educated women and why our parliament is so dominated by white, middle class, male etonians and oxford graduates. A few timid hands went up. He prized more out of us.
"What about the old boys system? do you think it's just who you know or is it who you are?"
He referenced Russel Brand's call for a revolution, for a rejection of party politics and for an abandonment of the vote. There were nods. More discussion. Ideas were moving round the room.
And it wasn't just interesting. It was exciting too. It was exciting to finally see someone recognise that a classroom full of teenagers doesn't have to be a classroom full of politically blank faces. Youth are not idea-less, they are without channels for those ideas. Citizenship classes are meant to inform and engage people in politics. I see them as a good thing. A really good thing. Dammit! An excellent thing. BUT- they could be better. Patronising young people and over-simplifying ideas so as to not seem to be generating revolution or controversy appear to be the main aims it is focussed on at the moment and I simply don't understand. Surely sparking revolution and controversy and questioning are good things? At least if young people are angry, if they are kicking against something, then at least they are thinking?
Maybe politics is being dumbed down for young people because it's easier that way. MPs don't have to shiver on the edge of their seats anxiously awaiting the sound of young fists at the door, young hands that will soon be gripping pens and ballot papers? Maybe it is the threat that an intelligent and informed youth pose to the establishment and to all those Eton old boys that is the cause of this sugar-coated syllabus? Well, if that is the case, as i suspect it might be, i am calling BULLSHIT.
It is in citizenship lessons that people should be beginning to form opinions, ideas and thoughts of their own on the wider issues that face our society outside of the four, poster-plastered walls of the classroom. It is in citizenship lessons that young people should be able to strive to get a new understanding of the whys and hows that make our country tick and how those could be uprooted, why they might be and what part they can play. It is in citizenship lessons that young people should be becoming citizens- citizens that make intelligent voting decisions and citizens that push their politicians to do something rather than just playing the blame game. For it is only when we have a generation of informed citizens that we can have a generation of informed politicians- politicians informed about life outside of Eton, Westminster, Harrow, Oxbridge and Daddy's dinner parties, politicians that, for once, might empathise with their constituents.
And all we need are a few more teachers with a few more opportunities to engage our young people. Social mobility? This is it. This is what it is made of. This is what our country requires.
Thursday 14 November 2013
Thursday 11 July 2013
A Sa'dwich Recipe for the 21st Century
This is an obesity-inducing BLT alternative, often called the Brains Not Possessed Sa'dwich. It is best not to plan it in advance but go for a more slap-dash give-or-take approach. Have no fear, there will be P-LENTY of waste.
-can't be produced on a minimum wage income-
Take two slices of the bread line and roll them with a heavy rolling pin until they are stretched very thin (look for crack lines, gaping holes and tears).
Heat a stolen iceberg lettuce slowly on a low heat until it starts to wilt.
Continue heating it until some of the oily liquid starts to bubble out.
Collect this liquid and save for later.
Using a knife, wildly cut back some vegetables until only the grimy bottoms remain.
Lay these stubs out on one slice of bread.
Slop the lettuce on over the top and hope for the best.
Grate a big cheese and then place the rind on top of the lettuce.
Leave the grated cheese with the oil from earlier.
Fold a P45 neatly and place on top of the lettuce. This should give the Sa'dwich a nice blunt texture.
If you wish, you may want to finish with some Bratwurst- but european isn't to everyone's taste.
Finally, smear a generous amount of bullshit (I recommend the Conservative's Staple Range) on top to coagulate the ingredients and finish with the remaining slice of bread.
Serve with a hefty bill, a box of tissues and a voting form.
for more 21st century recipe ideas check out Gove's Reformed Beans, Not-allowed-to-be-a-rainbow Cake and Eton Mess.
-can't be produced on a minimum wage income-
Take two slices of the bread line and roll them with a heavy rolling pin until they are stretched very thin (look for crack lines, gaping holes and tears).
Heat a stolen iceberg lettuce slowly on a low heat until it starts to wilt.
Continue heating it until some of the oily liquid starts to bubble out.
Collect this liquid and save for later.
Using a knife, wildly cut back some vegetables until only the grimy bottoms remain.
Lay these stubs out on one slice of bread.
Slop the lettuce on over the top and hope for the best.
Grate a big cheese and then place the rind on top of the lettuce.
Leave the grated cheese with the oil from earlier.
Fold a P45 neatly and place on top of the lettuce. This should give the Sa'dwich a nice blunt texture.
If you wish, you may want to finish with some Bratwurst- but european isn't to everyone's taste.
Finally, smear a generous amount of bullshit (I recommend the Conservative's Staple Range) on top to coagulate the ingredients and finish with the remaining slice of bread.
Serve with a hefty bill, a box of tissues and a voting form.
for more 21st century recipe ideas check out Gove's Reformed Beans, Not-allowed-to-be-a-rainbow Cake and Eton Mess.
To rant or not to- bitch please, is there even a question?
You know you have a good mate when you can rant about how much you hate sexism, conservatism and board games (or should we call them 'bored' games?) without them making it clear that you are infringing on their personal passiveness and right to live in content ignorance.
This is basically how i choose the majority of my friends.
It's not that i'm not open to a variety of different view points but the simple fact is... if you won't let me rant then you aren't going to be getting much conversation out of me tbh, and i am nothing without my conversation. (literally nothing. just a pile of clothes and a dead soul. cheery, i know.) I mean, i don't know whether you've noticed, but i LOVE a good rant. It's basically why i started this blog. that and a need to funnel some desperate, and often terrible (see 'bored' game gag for more details), witticisms into a more productive vessel. Cue blog post numero uno.
I need friends who are willing to listen and/or join me in my ranting. I like to have a kindred spirit to exchange expletives with when Gove's name crops up. I like someone to nod and high five but also criticise and question me. I like getting those friendly text responses saying "damn straight gurll" when I angrily punch my nokia brick phone buttons about sexists and oppressive if-you-haven't-found-God-you-are-a-failure activists who attempt to convert me in the time it takes for the tube to get from Tottenham court road to Goodge street.... urgh.
That reminds me...
*pauses post to angry text friend*
But my prospective friends list is growing bare and there is a lack of fresh meat appearing. Too many people- of all ages- are just too happy to sit on the fence and forgive every politician's bad moves by saying "but i'm sure they're lovely in real life!"
(Take, for instance, the american election. Ah, Mitt Romney. i decided quickly that he was an awful, disgusting specimen. And i made this opinion known.
"Err Mitt Romney is a terrible person."
"You can't say that! you don't know him!"
no. but i do know that i could never get to know a proud sexist, homophobic, idiotic, ignorant man who is prone to victim blaming and increasing his fake tan to match the ethnicity of his spectators. He doesn't sound that lovely really, does he?)
What i am trying to say is that we need a few more people to take a stand. A few more people to try climbing the shard King Kong style with campaign flags in hand. A few more people to get up on the trains, buses and tubes and tell the sexist old fool who is strutting around that he is a misogynist and should, in future, keep his mouth shut. A few more people who actually enjoy engaging in debates.A few more ranters and ravers and ramblers with good brains and the ability to aggressively touch type- that is a prerequisite. obvs.
We need them because they are the people that probe our politicians, question our society's values and identify the neanderthals that walk among us. If we invest in a generation of opinionated, interested, inspired ranters now, we might just get a generation of opinionated, interested, inspired world leaders in the future. I call it Sustainable Genius. You might just call it common sense.
In my (relatively short) time, I have found the odd fellow ranter. We always get on like a house on fire. Scratch that. We always get on like the great fire of London!
*If you would like to find a ranter to angry text for yourself, here are some qualities they often possess:
They often have fringes (though not always).
They often throw shit at fans (even if that is purely proverbial... we hope...).
They often quote Shakespeare, Marx or Lucy from Made in Chelsea.
They often lurk in coffee shops.
They often have a fondness for cats.
tip: find yourself a ranter. or better yet, become a ranter yourself. "We need YOU!"
This is basically how i choose the majority of my friends.
It's not that i'm not open to a variety of different view points but the simple fact is... if you won't let me rant then you aren't going to be getting much conversation out of me tbh, and i am nothing without my conversation. (literally nothing. just a pile of clothes and a dead soul. cheery, i know.) I mean, i don't know whether you've noticed, but i LOVE a good rant. It's basically why i started this blog. that and a need to funnel some desperate, and often terrible (see 'bored' game gag for more details), witticisms into a more productive vessel. Cue blog post numero uno.
I need friends who are willing to listen and/or join me in my ranting. I like to have a kindred spirit to exchange expletives with when Gove's name crops up. I like someone to nod and high five but also criticise and question me. I like getting those friendly text responses saying "damn straight gurll" when I angrily punch my nokia brick phone buttons about sexists and oppressive if-you-haven't-found-God-you-are-a-failure activists who attempt to convert me in the time it takes for the tube to get from Tottenham court road to Goodge street.... urgh.
That reminds me...
*pauses post to angry text friend*
But my prospective friends list is growing bare and there is a lack of fresh meat appearing. Too many people- of all ages- are just too happy to sit on the fence and forgive every politician's bad moves by saying "but i'm sure they're lovely in real life!"
(Take, for instance, the american election. Ah, Mitt Romney. i decided quickly that he was an awful, disgusting specimen. And i made this opinion known.
"Err Mitt Romney is a terrible person."
"You can't say that! you don't know him!"
no. but i do know that i could never get to know a proud sexist, homophobic, idiotic, ignorant man who is prone to victim blaming and increasing his fake tan to match the ethnicity of his spectators. He doesn't sound that lovely really, does he?)
What i am trying to say is that we need a few more people to take a stand. A few more people to try climbing the shard King Kong style with campaign flags in hand. A few more people to get up on the trains, buses and tubes and tell the sexist old fool who is strutting around that he is a misogynist and should, in future, keep his mouth shut. A few more people who actually enjoy engaging in debates.A few more ranters and ravers and ramblers with good brains and the ability to aggressively touch type- that is a prerequisite. obvs.
We need them because they are the people that probe our politicians, question our society's values and identify the neanderthals that walk among us. If we invest in a generation of opinionated, interested, inspired ranters now, we might just get a generation of opinionated, interested, inspired world leaders in the future. I call it Sustainable Genius. You might just call it common sense.
In my (relatively short) time, I have found the odd fellow ranter. We always get on like a house on fire. Scratch that. We always get on like the great fire of London!
*If you would like to find a ranter to angry text for yourself, here are some qualities they often possess:
They often have fringes (though not always).
They often throw shit at fans (even if that is purely proverbial... we hope...).
They often quote Shakespeare, Marx or Lucy from Made in Chelsea.
They often lurk in coffee shops.
They often have a fondness for cats.
tip: find yourself a ranter. or better yet, become a ranter yourself. "We need YOU!"
Monday 3 June 2013
Why i am losing faith in the human race... (reason #1)
Sometimes I lose faith in the human race. This lack of faith is usually due to little, digging annoyances and moments when i am forced to wonder whether some of the people on this Earth are actually aware that when something says "fire exit" it is not asking you to park your massive pram in front of it (i'm looking at you, Bellenden-Road-Green-tea-Mochachino-drinkers). These are mostly just fleeting thoughts, dwindling away as soon as i realise that the chocolate cake had three layers rather than just two...
But every now and again something makes me feel sick to my stomach and i am struck with an overwhelming lack of faith. And this time I'm not talking about prats with their prams, I'm talking about the bigots who are lurking in our houses of parliament. I'm talking about opposition to the Gay Marriage Bill.
Shall i tell you what i thought, innocently and naively, when i first heard that finally this bill might get passed? What's that? yeah, well i'm telling you anyway so LISTEN UP.
1. About time too!!! Obviously same sex couples should be allowed to get married. They are human (which may come as news to some of the tory back benchers) and two, consenting, adult humans should be allowed to get married. I'm so terribly glad that finally people are recognising that your sexual orientation shouldn't affect what you are allowed to do in life. I mean, i thought that that was obvious.
and that is it. because it really is as simple as "errr yep." To be honest, there shouldn't really need to be a debate about it because, well, it's the right thing to do.
But then in came all the inevitable rubbish. The homophobes, who had until now been able to just sit in parliament avoiding the subject, stood up and started spouting reels and reels of utter (for want of a better word) shit....
Ah yes, the "sanctity of marriage". that one again? Oh i was hoping for a bit of originality. What's next? "adam and eve, not adam and steve"? "Marriage belongs to the church- if the church doesn't want them to have it, then they can't have it."? *clears throat aggressively* Soz, but atheists can get "married", agnostics can get "married", non-christians can get "married" as long as they are heterosexual. BUT two gay christian men can't? If marriage is defined by the church then why can i get married without even having to set foot in a church, or any religious building for that matter?
And then a nice sprinkling of the appeal for "tradition" . To quote Lord Dear (or as i fondly refer to him: "Lord Dear God, why are you even allowed to discuss this?") the bill "sought to overturn centuries of tradition." duh. sort of the point. It is seeking to overturn centuries of tradition. Centuries of tradition that have ensured the maltreatment and oppression of people purely based on who they have fallen in love with. Centuries of traditions that have meant that people were treated as being abnormal, sinful, sub-human because of their sexual orientation. Centuries of tradition that have driven great minds and great people to the edge and then shoved them off it. Centuries of tradition that are outdated and need to be renewed and reexamined. If we had kept all of our century old traditions we would still be living in a world with no democracy, no technology and certainly no equality. So i, for one, am gladly moving on from those famous (or infamous) traditions.
And from traditions we come to the idiots who don't even deserve a morsel of recognition. The "slippery slope" enthusiasts*. I shall say no more because we can all smell bullshit where they are concerned.
(*eg: "people are going to be able to marry their pet fish" "people will marry their cars" "everyone will magically become gay"... for further examples just have a little read of Lord Carey's views.)
And aside from those there have been a the few little smart-arses butting in with "but they are equal. A gay man can get married- he can marry a woman." *sobs* I don't want to live on this planet any more... The question is not whether someone can get married, it's whether they can get married to the person of their choice, the person they love, the person that they are attracted to. Marriage shouldn't just be a person marrying someone of the opposite sex, it should be a person marrying the person that they love. Jeez.
There really is no debate. The church shouldn't be complaining because the Bible preaches love and that is all this is: love. Love between same-sex couples, love between all couples. Love is for everyone no matter their sexual orientation, love is for humanity. And if a church doesn't want to marry same sex couples then fair enough, they don't have to opt in. This is about choice. No one is going to force same sex marriage upon you, no one is going to force you to get married to someone of your sex, no one is going to force you to treat your fellow human beings with respect and courtesy- because i would hope that that doesn't have to be forced; it should be instinctive.
Marriage is not just a word, it can be symbol of a world that is progressing. Why are we turning something that should be about love into a mechanism for hate? I would like my faith in humanity to be restored. PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF- Love. In all it's forms.
tip: Well i hate to state the obvious but, errrr, pass the bill, lords and ladies- danke.
https://www.facebook.com/WOH247?fref=ts - Wipe out Homophobia on FB, go and like this page!!
Tuesday 7 May 2013
Scarps and Skeptics: the EU referendum
With UKIP councilors being voted in in huge
numbers across the country, creeping up like weeds through political cracks in
our cutback concrete roads, without warning poking their hay-fever (more like depression and anxiety) inducing heads up in the media
and Nigel Farage declaring that “UKIP is here to stay” (apparently there isn’t
any herbicide that can dampen his determination- damn it.), it isn’t surprising that
suddenly our position in the EU has gone from feeling slightly unsteady to damn
right precarious.
And it’s not just UKIP that’s nudging us
off the EU cliff either; the conservatives are looking to jump off the precipice
just a few years from now and Lord Lawson seems equally set on us leaving the
single market because he reckons that it will open us up for more trade with
the rest of the world without damaging our trading relationship with the rest
of the EU. Oh Lord, how I beg to differ!
Not only has the EU ensured that we have
had stable trade for some years but also provides us with opportunities to
enrich our ethnically and culturally diverse society. EU laws and requirements
allow for consumer protection and safety, free health care when abroad in the
EU, price guarantees and regulations on things like energy and telecom
connections… it allows us to have utterly free movement from one EU country to
another which in turn grants UK businesses the ability to hire employees with
the most beneficial and appropriate skill set to boost efficiency… The EU gives
us a safety net both financially and personally (and, if we’re honest, we need
as many supports and safety nets to bolster our country as possible). It's all looking pretty peachy isn't it?
So as we teeter on the edge of the EU
cliff, feet skidding on the slippery referendum rocks below, peering over the
edge desperately trying to see what lurks in the abyss, I warn you that all I
can see is a vertical plummet into the murky depths of financial instability,
reduced trade and travel, a greater homogenised society and less insight and
input into European (and global) affairs. I really hope that we don’t take the
leap or get shoved in the back by Farage, Cameron and Lawson. I hope that we
stop floundering. I hope that we turn around, stare the euro skeptics in the
face and say “nein, danke.”*
*or alternatively: "(insert 'no, thank you' in all 23 official languages of the european union)"
previous blog post on EU referendum
Tip: just ermmm stating the obvious- don't vote UKIP (or any other prejudiced, anti-EU party, for that matter). Yay!
Tip: just ermmm stating the obvious- don't vote UKIP (or any other prejudiced, anti-EU party, for that matter). Yay!
Tuesday 16 April 2013
Whose funeral? Margaret Thatcher's or the Milk Snatcher's?
so, as i'm sure you can tell, i've rather avoided the "Thatcher conundrum" thus far because i am, for once ("anonymous"- my pal from my previous posts- will be glad to here this), not sure about what i think.
*ERMAHGERDDD. what is this unfamiliar feeling? it must be the pangs of uncertainty and mixed feelings.*
But as the funeral's tomorrow... I should probably tell you some of the thoughts i have had on the topic:
Here we go....
You see, I know a few things. I know that i hate what Thatcher and Thatcherism stood for and stand for today. I know i hate that Thatcher is celebrated and damned for being a woman (what are these mysterious creatures?) rather than just for her policies. I know i hate what her policies meant and continue to mean to our society. AND i hate that i can't just hate her.
I was not a child of Thatcher. I did not have my milk snatched from me in front of my eyes (even though i probably would have been gagging over the prospect of having to drink it anyway). I don't feel like I have suffered directly at the hands of Thatcher and her regime.
But- and it's one hell of a big "but"- I know that a woman who told us that "there is no such thing as society" and that the poor, the unemployed, the homeless, the working class were all forcing their problems on society and the government should not have a state funeral- because, call it what you will, that is what it is. And it's not a cheap one- there have been a lot of reports/rumours (depending on your point of view) of a figure close to £10 million coming out of tax payers pockets. She did not unify or support the whole country. She did not help women get into power- she got in but that does not, nor ever will, mean that she was a feminist revolutionary helping other women get up the ranks and defeat the patriarchy. She solved some problems but she caused plenty as well. And we (by which i mean some individuals who have not taken into account the thoughts and feelings of the people) are going to silence Big Ben for her? hmm.
I don't feel a huge sense of elation at her death, nor would i join a party to celebrate it, but i can understand why someone would. I can understand and i can condone someone celebrating her demise because i can understand and condone someone's hate for her and because i can understand why someone would not view Margaret Thatcher as someone deserving of their grief. I am certainly not mourning her. A lot of people are saying that at this time we have to view and treat her as what she fundamentally was- a human being. But how can the average veteran of Thatcher's britain see her as a just a normal human when she is being given a state funeral, destroyed their lives and (even from a distance and indirectly) has continued to have an influence over our country?
We see her influence everywhere. It's in the fact that she is what people think of when someone says "a woman as prime minister" no matter the context. It's in the fact that her death has had such huge media coverage. It's in the fact that her death has provided a distraction from what our current tory government is doing. Even in death Thatcher is doing what she always did- providing a face for people to shout at, scream about, blame, look to, distract from when the government does something disgusting. She has always been a famous- or infamous- personality. She will always be that. She is immortal. And that is why it's so hard to think of her as a human. Because, though Margaret has died, Thatcher lives on in the memories of the people and the society that she affected. Margaret may no longer exist but Maggie Thatcher, the milk snatcher definitely does. Maybe she exists, and has existed for a long time, as more of an idea and a personality than as a person? Maybe that is what she has always been and maybe, this is just an idea, that is what people are celebrating the end of, even if it isn't really the end? We must not think of them as monsters celebrating an 87 year old woman's death but as people celebrating the Iron Lady's death- a somewhat tyrannical figure who attempted to destroy the welfare state.Who can blame those people?
So i suppose i do know what i think. I suppose what i think is just neither "WOOHOOO SHE IS DEAD!" nor "oh dear- i shall miss her terribly" but more of a "hmmm". And, if one thing's for certain, i'm not going to stop listening to my Wizard of Oz sound track because it's morbid- be happy that at least our crumpled society has enough unity and determination to get a political track into the charts after everything it's been through!
Tip: hmmm tough one. i reckon we should all just be a bit more tolerant and sensitive to other people's views because there is such a thing as society. This is it. Welcome.
*ERMAHGERDDD. what is this unfamiliar feeling? it must be the pangs of uncertainty and mixed feelings.*
But as the funeral's tomorrow... I should probably tell you some of the thoughts i have had on the topic:
Here we go....
You see, I know a few things. I know that i hate what Thatcher and Thatcherism stood for and stand for today. I know i hate that Thatcher is celebrated and damned for being a woman (what are these mysterious creatures?) rather than just for her policies. I know i hate what her policies meant and continue to mean to our society. AND i hate that i can't just hate her.
I was not a child of Thatcher. I did not have my milk snatched from me in front of my eyes (even though i probably would have been gagging over the prospect of having to drink it anyway). I don't feel like I have suffered directly at the hands of Thatcher and her regime.
But- and it's one hell of a big "but"- I know that a woman who told us that "there is no such thing as society" and that the poor, the unemployed, the homeless, the working class were all forcing their problems on society and the government should not have a state funeral- because, call it what you will, that is what it is. And it's not a cheap one- there have been a lot of reports/rumours (depending on your point of view) of a figure close to £10 million coming out of tax payers pockets. She did not unify or support the whole country. She did not help women get into power- she got in but that does not, nor ever will, mean that she was a feminist revolutionary helping other women get up the ranks and defeat the patriarchy. She solved some problems but she caused plenty as well. And we (by which i mean some individuals who have not taken into account the thoughts and feelings of the people) are going to silence Big Ben for her? hmm.
I don't feel a huge sense of elation at her death, nor would i join a party to celebrate it, but i can understand why someone would. I can understand and i can condone someone celebrating her demise because i can understand and condone someone's hate for her and because i can understand why someone would not view Margaret Thatcher as someone deserving of their grief. I am certainly not mourning her. A lot of people are saying that at this time we have to view and treat her as what she fundamentally was- a human being. But how can the average veteran of Thatcher's britain see her as a just a normal human when she is being given a state funeral, destroyed their lives and (even from a distance and indirectly) has continued to have an influence over our country?
We see her influence everywhere. It's in the fact that she is what people think of when someone says "a woman as prime minister" no matter the context. It's in the fact that her death has had such huge media coverage. It's in the fact that her death has provided a distraction from what our current tory government is doing. Even in death Thatcher is doing what she always did- providing a face for people to shout at, scream about, blame, look to, distract from when the government does something disgusting. She has always been a famous- or infamous- personality. She will always be that. She is immortal. And that is why it's so hard to think of her as a human. Because, though Margaret has died, Thatcher lives on in the memories of the people and the society that she affected. Margaret may no longer exist but Maggie Thatcher, the milk snatcher definitely does. Maybe she exists, and has existed for a long time, as more of an idea and a personality than as a person? Maybe that is what she has always been and maybe, this is just an idea, that is what people are celebrating the end of, even if it isn't really the end? We must not think of them as monsters celebrating an 87 year old woman's death but as people celebrating the Iron Lady's death- a somewhat tyrannical figure who attempted to destroy the welfare state.Who can blame those people?
So i suppose i do know what i think. I suppose what i think is just neither "WOOHOOO SHE IS DEAD!" nor "oh dear- i shall miss her terribly" but more of a "hmmm". And, if one thing's for certain, i'm not going to stop listening to my Wizard of Oz sound track because it's morbid- be happy that at least our crumpled society has enough unity and determination to get a political track into the charts after everything it's been through!
Tip: hmmm tough one. i reckon we should all just be a bit more tolerant and sensitive to other people's views because there is such a thing as society. This is it. Welcome.
Friday 5 April 2013
Young people have brains!? say whatttt??
So i recently came into contact with some pretty horrible ageism. It was from the "young people are stupid and should only speak when spoken to" variety. Classic.
Now i'm hoping it's not just me that thinks that it is perfectly feasible for a normal young person to have a functioning brain complete with the ability to reason and form opinions of their own? After all if you are reading this blog then you have (OH MY GAWSHH) come into contact with a young person who has, i hope you will agree, some valid points of view. It's true that not all of my ideas are perfect but i wonder whose are, really?
I think we should all be encouraging young people- the people who will one day be at the head of our government and our businesses and our families- to think for themselves because if we don't who is going to think for them? Who is going to make the tough decisions about the future of the welfare state, the economy, the education system, to name but a few? Who else will take on the responsibility of the next generation of young people- our young peoples' young people?
Do we really want a future in which it is easy for a government, even for a single person, to corrupt its people with an idea held by the minority because the majority are so easily led, so willing to accept without question, so easy to mould and morph and manipulate?
If we don't want to run the risk of letting our young peoples' minds become a mush of imposed ideas and a sponge for horrible policy and disgusting views, then we should be ensuring that young people are forming their own opinions. Schools should focus on developing argument and debating skills, educating and informing people on a wide range of beliefs and viewpoints and how to approach and solve issues and actively defend their rights and opinions.
We should not be silencing our young people. They have things to say. They have thoughts and ideas. They are just as able to have and just as entitled to an opinion and to a voice to share their opinion with as someone 10 years older. Just because they are young and have not "seen the world" does not make them stupid. There are plenty of older people who are not as intelligent, well rounded, tolerant or experienced as some of our young people. You do not suddenly hit 18, become an adult and suddenly have a mind that is so rich with ideas and experiences that your thoughts are automatically worth more than your 15 year old friend. Age is not what makes someone more informed or intelligent- a good, well-nourished, active brain is. Your years on earth do not directly correspond to how valued and valid your opinion is- if it did we would be in trouble because so many of our older politicians have also got the most outdated and ignorant views and if we're all headed that way then... my god... we should just give up now.
Tip: do not beat down young people- we have equal potential for influence, intelligence and importance, thank you very much. just remember the phrase: "credit when credit is due"- whatever age it is deserved at.
Now i'm hoping it's not just me that thinks that it is perfectly feasible for a normal young person to have a functioning brain complete with the ability to reason and form opinions of their own? After all if you are reading this blog then you have (OH MY GAWSHH) come into contact with a young person who has, i hope you will agree, some valid points of view. It's true that not all of my ideas are perfect but i wonder whose are, really?
I think we should all be encouraging young people- the people who will one day be at the head of our government and our businesses and our families- to think for themselves because if we don't who is going to think for them? Who is going to make the tough decisions about the future of the welfare state, the economy, the education system, to name but a few? Who else will take on the responsibility of the next generation of young people- our young peoples' young people?
Do we really want a future in which it is easy for a government, even for a single person, to corrupt its people with an idea held by the minority because the majority are so easily led, so willing to accept without question, so easy to mould and morph and manipulate?
If we don't want to run the risk of letting our young peoples' minds become a mush of imposed ideas and a sponge for horrible policy and disgusting views, then we should be ensuring that young people are forming their own opinions. Schools should focus on developing argument and debating skills, educating and informing people on a wide range of beliefs and viewpoints and how to approach and solve issues and actively defend their rights and opinions.
We should not be silencing our young people. They have things to say. They have thoughts and ideas. They are just as able to have and just as entitled to an opinion and to a voice to share their opinion with as someone 10 years older. Just because they are young and have not "seen the world" does not make them stupid. There are plenty of older people who are not as intelligent, well rounded, tolerant or experienced as some of our young people. You do not suddenly hit 18, become an adult and suddenly have a mind that is so rich with ideas and experiences that your thoughts are automatically worth more than your 15 year old friend. Age is not what makes someone more informed or intelligent- a good, well-nourished, active brain is. Your years on earth do not directly correspond to how valued and valid your opinion is- if it did we would be in trouble because so many of our older politicians have also got the most outdated and ignorant views and if we're all headed that way then... my god... we should just give up now.
Tip: do not beat down young people- we have equal potential for influence, intelligence and importance, thank you very much. just remember the phrase: "credit when credit is due"- whatever age it is deserved at.
"I'm a feminist but i'm not really. lolz."
"i'm a feminist but..." is i phrase i dislike immensely- it's sitting right next to "i'm prochoice but..." and "i'm not racist/sexist/homophobic but...". Generally once i hear it come out of someone's mouth i'm already cantering up to the moral high ground waving my "down with the patriarchy" flag and preparing a rant to cut the "but"-er down to size.
The most common "buts" i hear are:
"i'm a feminist but... i don't understand how a mother could let someone else look after their child..." to which i laugh, shake my head and say "you will be homeschooling then?" and if they nod "Your child will never go to a party? or go to a sleepover?" and if they nod again "well that's... nice..."
"i'm a feminist but... people can't complain if someone rapes them or calls them 'easy' or something if they wear really slutty clothes..." to which i turn a dark shade of purple, grit my teeth and say "ah yes because obviously you should not have the right to wear what you want without being treated like a sex object! And obviously if you wear slutty clothes you clearly want to get raped! And obviously men can't control themselves around short skirts and low cut tops because they are basically brainless, sex obsessed animals! And obviously you are an IDIOT."
"i'm a feminist but... some women just need to calm the fuck down..." to which i look a little confused. "Soz but i don't quite get what you are saying about feminism vis-a-vis 'calming the fuck down'? If you are implying that some women are getting too passionate about equality then i am going to have to ask you to rethink that because i don't think you can be too passionate about defeating a system that has oppressed women based on their gender alone for centuries... if anything we need more women to fight the patriarchy with even greater vehemence! BUT if you were just making a general point about all people- not just specifically women ("coz men don't get stressed, obvs" ummm... what?)- then yeah, totes."
The above "but"-ers are part of a new wave of people who i fondly refer to as "not-feminists". They are a group of people who think that claiming to be feminist is enough and that being a feminist doesn't actually mean anything- that it is literally just an 8 letter word that has something to do with women (and some of these "not-feminists" don't even get that far, if i'm honest). It's time to make feminism mean something again to all the people who are wandering over to not-feminism. We should just, you know, nip it in the "but".
Tip #34 (i don't actually know what number we're up to- i think it's about 34, maybe 35... or 33? meh.): anyhewww i just think people should stop umming and erring and but-ing about feminism- It really is as simple as this: http://www.areyouafeminist.com
(this is a post about how i respond to these kind of situations and how i feel about these ideas)
The most common "buts" i hear are:
"i'm a feminist but... i don't understand how a mother could let someone else look after their child..." to which i laugh, shake my head and say "you will be homeschooling then?" and if they nod "Your child will never go to a party? or go to a sleepover?" and if they nod again "well that's... nice..."
"i'm a feminist but... people can't complain if someone rapes them or calls them 'easy' or something if they wear really slutty clothes..." to which i turn a dark shade of purple, grit my teeth and say "ah yes because obviously you should not have the right to wear what you want without being treated like a sex object! And obviously if you wear slutty clothes you clearly want to get raped! And obviously men can't control themselves around short skirts and low cut tops because they are basically brainless, sex obsessed animals! And obviously you are an IDIOT."
"i'm a feminist but... some women just need to calm the fuck down..." to which i look a little confused. "Soz but i don't quite get what you are saying about feminism vis-a-vis 'calming the fuck down'? If you are implying that some women are getting too passionate about equality then i am going to have to ask you to rethink that because i don't think you can be too passionate about defeating a system that has oppressed women based on their gender alone for centuries... if anything we need more women to fight the patriarchy with even greater vehemence! BUT if you were just making a general point about all people- not just specifically women ("coz men don't get stressed, obvs" ummm... what?)- then yeah, totes."
The above "but"-ers are part of a new wave of people who i fondly refer to as "not-feminists". They are a group of people who think that claiming to be feminist is enough and that being a feminist doesn't actually mean anything- that it is literally just an 8 letter word that has something to do with women (and some of these "not-feminists" don't even get that far, if i'm honest). It's time to make feminism mean something again to all the people who are wandering over to not-feminism. We should just, you know, nip it in the "but".
Tip #34 (i don't actually know what number we're up to- i think it's about 34, maybe 35... or 33? meh.): anyhewww i just think people should stop umming and erring and but-ing about feminism- It really is as simple as this: http://www.areyouafeminist.com
(this is a post about how i respond to these kind of situations and how i feel about these ideas)
Friday 22 March 2013
OAP does not spell Cable... apparently...
At the ripe old age (or ripe young age... depending on who you are...) of 69 (hehehe- #megalolz) Vince Cable doesn't seem to be giving up yet... damn.
Public figures getting too old seems to be a bit of a running theme recently with old Benedict retiring and the like. And now this wave of "ageism" appears to have hit, or rather not hit, parliament. Apparently old Vincey is planning on standing to be an MP next general election... in 2015... when he will be 71? AND he hasn't ruled out standing for election as leader of the lib dems in a few years... AND he seems pretty confident that he will have the energy and stamina to carry it through... like churchill and Gladstone did...
And well done to him... i guess.
I mean ageism is as bad as any other type of prejudice... and i can't argue that he shouldn't be allowed to continue with his career for as long as he can... and i can't suggest that because he is getting older, he is getting less able... BUT i do feel that he might want to move over and let some fresh blood have a shot at shaking up parliament because i just don't feel like that is happening often enough at the moment.
Fair deuce, we have currently got the youngest british Prime Minister we've had for a LONG time... and when i say long, i mean long- like longer than Vince Cable's been alive! And that is like well old, innit.
But, no offence Cameron, our current PM isn't exactly revolutionising politics or particularly supporting young people... and that, i suppose, is the major issue here: OUR POLITICIANS DO NOT CARE ENOUGH ABOUT YOUNG PEOPLE. It's all very all well complaining about older people being pushed out but they aren't exactly making room for young people to squish in. And not trusting or supporting young people in the same way that you support and trust older people is another form of ageism.
This sort of ageism is probably most obvious in the fact that 16 year olds can't vote and the fact that are only around 28 MPs under the age of 30 in our current government. awks.
The idea that the government is also not exactly nurturing a new generation of politicians with their terrible education policy, raising of tuition fees and the acceptance of the bad press that young people get is not helping either!! Less young people are going to be willing or able to get the qualifications they need to get into politics and that means that we are set to have a rapidly ageing parliament for the foreseeable future. Dear god- we are doomed.
So Vince, It's not that i want you to leave (although...), it's just that i want you to leave space for someone a little bit younger... and that's not because i prefer younger people (although...) or because i think they make better politicians, it's just that we need some new ideas, new minds, new revolutionaries and, as far as i can tell, we can best get that from young people. Plus we need a better range of people in parliament- it needs to be diverse to represent our diverse society- and that range includes women, men, the old and the young.
And yes, Cable, Churchill and Gladstone did serve as PM in their 70s and 80s BUT that doesn't mean that we couldn't have a PM in the future who was closer to 18 than 80- maybe, say, 30-something??
(tip) So can we please stop complaining about back ache and ageism when you are crushing the education system, raising tuition fees and perpetuating stereotypes of young people? Ok? Ok. That's a deal then? Stop mucking your young people, and our future government, up. NOW.
Public figures getting too old seems to be a bit of a running theme recently with old Benedict retiring and the like. And now this wave of "ageism" appears to have hit, or rather not hit, parliament. Apparently old Vincey is planning on standing to be an MP next general election... in 2015... when he will be 71? AND he hasn't ruled out standing for election as leader of the lib dems in a few years... AND he seems pretty confident that he will have the energy and stamina to carry it through... like churchill and Gladstone did...
And well done to him... i guess.
I mean ageism is as bad as any other type of prejudice... and i can't argue that he shouldn't be allowed to continue with his career for as long as he can... and i can't suggest that because he is getting older, he is getting less able... BUT i do feel that he might want to move over and let some fresh blood have a shot at shaking up parliament because i just don't feel like that is happening often enough at the moment.
Fair deuce, we have currently got the youngest british Prime Minister we've had for a LONG time... and when i say long, i mean long- like longer than Vince Cable's been alive! And that is like well old, innit.
But, no offence Cameron, our current PM isn't exactly revolutionising politics or particularly supporting young people... and that, i suppose, is the major issue here: OUR POLITICIANS DO NOT CARE ENOUGH ABOUT YOUNG PEOPLE. It's all very all well complaining about older people being pushed out but they aren't exactly making room for young people to squish in. And not trusting or supporting young people in the same way that you support and trust older people is another form of ageism.
This sort of ageism is probably most obvious in the fact that 16 year olds can't vote and the fact that are only around 28 MPs under the age of 30 in our current government. awks.
The idea that the government is also not exactly nurturing a new generation of politicians with their terrible education policy, raising of tuition fees and the acceptance of the bad press that young people get is not helping either!! Less young people are going to be willing or able to get the qualifications they need to get into politics and that means that we are set to have a rapidly ageing parliament for the foreseeable future. Dear god- we are doomed.
So Vince, It's not that i want you to leave (although...), it's just that i want you to leave space for someone a little bit younger... and that's not because i prefer younger people (although...) or because i think they make better politicians, it's just that we need some new ideas, new minds, new revolutionaries and, as far as i can tell, we can best get that from young people. Plus we need a better range of people in parliament- it needs to be diverse to represent our diverse society- and that range includes women, men, the old and the young.
And yes, Cable, Churchill and Gladstone did serve as PM in their 70s and 80s BUT that doesn't mean that we couldn't have a PM in the future who was closer to 18 than 80- maybe, say, 30-something??
(tip) So can we please stop complaining about back ache and ageism when you are crushing the education system, raising tuition fees and perpetuating stereotypes of young people? Ok? Ok. That's a deal then? Stop mucking your young people, and our future government, up. NOW.
Tuesday 5 March 2013
Cleggucation
"ooohhh" i think as i listen to the news. "oooohhh" i think as i hear that nick clegg is sending his eldest (Antonio.. dahhhlinngg..) to a state school. "oh" i think as i hear it is london oratory.
i have nothing against oratory per se, but one does think that if Clegg wanted to highlight the fairness of the state system and his confidence in it he could have done a little better. What i mean is that oratory is part of a minority of state schools. it is one of the best schools around- about 92% of it's students get 5 A*-C grades at GCSE. It also happens to have a catchment area that contains houses that sell for around £2 million and over. This year oratory is organising a black tie event to celebrate 150 years since it started and guess how much the tickets cost? not £5 like most state schools... not even £50.... no, no- oratory has got its parents and students sussed- £125 sound about right?
And it's nothing new on the political scene- both Tony Blair and Harriet Harman have had their children attend it. So originality points? 0.
And it's nothing new on the political scene- both Tony Blair and Harriet Harman have had their children attend it. So originality points? 0.
it's also a faith school- all well and good (go to one myself actually...)- except... faith schools can base part of their intake on- any guesses- faith. Faith school+£2million catchment area+good grades= what sounds to me like a pretty elite "comprehensive".
i think it's brill that Clegg wants to send his son (Antonio... dahhhhlinnng...) to a state school. I think it's brill that his son (Antonio... dahhhli- sorry. i'll stop.) has got into such a great school. I think it's brill that such great schools exist in the state system. BUT- and it's a big "but"- London Oratory is hardly a massive, hard-core, take-what-you're-given-and-like-it comprehensive. It's not as if Antonio is one of the kids that hasn't really got a choice about what school they go to- the kids that aren't deputy pm's sons, aren't living in million pound houses, aren't catholic, aren't in a feeder school, can't afford to go private if necessary, only have one school in their area, have parents who haven't been told enough about the tricks and tips of the system..... the kids that aren't so lucky.
Clegg has rather highlighted the injustice and inequality in our education system. Some children have a wealth of great schools available to them and some have nothing. He has managed to get his child into a great school so won't have to worry about special measures and lack of opportunities. He has done pretty well as a dad, as a man trying to set up his son's future (Etc.) but, politically, i think he's rather shot himself in the foot (even if he does insist on limping across the finish line with a determined "it's still state" and a faint) because Oratory, in comparison to the majority of ordinary state schools, is pretty... well... private-ish, i guess. It belongs to an elite group of state schools with a private school mindset and private school image- the only thing that's really different is that Clegg doesn't have to pay for his son's education.
TIP: maybe our politicians should start trying to support and raise the profile of the ordinary school? rather than giving continued prestige and coverage to elite, already over subscribed and well funded schools? just an idea, Nick, just a little tip.
TIP: maybe our politicians should start trying to support and raise the profile of the ordinary school? rather than giving continued prestige and coverage to elite, already over subscribed and well funded schools? just an idea, Nick, just a little tip.
Thursday 21 February 2013
Cameron's Kitchen Table #3
David Cameron stares blankly at his laptop. His ears have changed from a milky coral colour to a deep crimson.
David: 10 BILLION POUNDS!? 10 BILLION POUNDS!?
Samantha: (flicking through a cath kidston catalogue) What's "10 billion pounds" dear?
David: oh nothing... Just the BLOODY AID BUDGET. BLOODY POOR PEOPLE IN UNDEVELOPED COUNTRIES. BLOODY HELL.
Samantha: darling! we have to have an aid budget- it's rather crucial.
David: blah blah blah.. crucial? nonsense. What's crucial is our defence! i don't want those bloody poor people, who happen to be in a "crisis", to attack us. Not having enough ammunition, with which to blow up those who pose a threat to me, is a crisis. Realising you've blown your own expenses budget on aid- that's a crisis. Waitrose closing because there is a terror threat and not being able to buy the right sort of granola (the one that sort of clumps together with honey...)- that. is. a. CRISIS! but i'm not asking for aid, am i? compensation for my granola? I. DON'T. THINK. SO.
Samantha: But surely you can't think that it might be preferable to invest in war and killing rather than aid and saving people? think of your reputation!
David: Good point. Don't want the press to make it obvious that i don't care about anywhere else but england... They might suggest that i'm thinking of joining UKIP! (although i have heard that they have a very good pension plan...) no. I can't look like a fool. It can't seem like i am actually encouraging the cutting of the aid budget. Humph. I'm going to have to ermmm... sugar coat it.... hmmm.... any ideas?
Samantha: how about saying that without defence you can't start to help development? something about requiring security and stability first? And we could call the transfer of funding "sharing"! oh and make it into just something you're... considering... then you can back out when you want! Yay!
David: ahhh... that way i won't have to invest in a bullet proof vest but can still stop giving money to the bloody poor and desperate. clever. Maybe i should put you in cabinet... apparently i need more women... bloody feminists and their rights...
Samantha: maybe we should order you a bullet proof vest after all...
Tip: This is a tip for the PM- ah david. sadly, though security and stability are important, aid is rather more than that. We sort of need it because it... umm... how can i make this accessible to you.... HELPS people? Defence is all well and good but we need to, at the very least, appear to be humane... So a little less "sharing" and a bit more caring, eh?
David: 10 BILLION POUNDS!? 10 BILLION POUNDS!?
Samantha: (flicking through a cath kidston catalogue) What's "10 billion pounds" dear?
David: oh nothing... Just the BLOODY AID BUDGET. BLOODY POOR PEOPLE IN UNDEVELOPED COUNTRIES. BLOODY HELL.
Samantha: darling! we have to have an aid budget- it's rather crucial.
David: blah blah blah.. crucial? nonsense. What's crucial is our defence! i don't want those bloody poor people, who happen to be in a "crisis", to attack us. Not having enough ammunition, with which to blow up those who pose a threat to me, is a crisis. Realising you've blown your own expenses budget on aid- that's a crisis. Waitrose closing because there is a terror threat and not being able to buy the right sort of granola (the one that sort of clumps together with honey...)- that. is. a. CRISIS! but i'm not asking for aid, am i? compensation for my granola? I. DON'T. THINK. SO.
Samantha: But surely you can't think that it might be preferable to invest in war and killing rather than aid and saving people? think of your reputation!
David: Good point. Don't want the press to make it obvious that i don't care about anywhere else but england... They might suggest that i'm thinking of joining UKIP! (although i have heard that they have a very good pension plan...) no. I can't look like a fool. It can't seem like i am actually encouraging the cutting of the aid budget. Humph. I'm going to have to ermmm... sugar coat it.... hmmm.... any ideas?
Samantha: how about saying that without defence you can't start to help development? something about requiring security and stability first? And we could call the transfer of funding "sharing"! oh and make it into just something you're... considering... then you can back out when you want! Yay!
David: ahhh... that way i won't have to invest in a bullet proof vest but can still stop giving money to the bloody poor and desperate. clever. Maybe i should put you in cabinet... apparently i need more women... bloody feminists and their rights...
Samantha: maybe we should order you a bullet proof vest after all...
Tip: This is a tip for the PM- ah david. sadly, though security and stability are important, aid is rather more than that. We sort of need it because it... umm... how can i make this accessible to you.... HELPS people? Defence is all well and good but we need to, at the very least, appear to be humane... So a little less "sharing" and a bit more caring, eh?
Tuesday 12 February 2013
OAP spells Pope.
Now if you've been somewhere in outer space for the past day you might not have heard that the Pope has resigned. He's the first pope to resign in just under 6 centuries. And what's his reason? old age. He feels too frail to continue with his work for the catholic church and, if i'm honest, fair enough really... it's a hugely demanding role and it's not as if anyone has been going soft on him about his decisions because of his age (and rightly so, might i add).
Now it's all well and good the story of the Pope resigning but what i found most entertaining was that just hours after he announced his resignation lightning struck the Vatican. No, not metaphorically- real lightning... the kind that splinters across the sky... Now if that has not been taken as a sign or an omen by some fanatic somewhere then an opportunity has been missed. "God shall smite thee"- come on guys?! I'm certain that over the next few months there will be at least one new apocalypse prediction- brace yourselves for "28th of February...2013. The end of the World.... again... no, really, we're sure about this one!"
But on a more serious note: Cardinals over 80 aren't allowed to vote for the next pope (Simon Cowell should totally get on that..."The pope factor"...deffo.) which means that Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, who used to be the leader of the English and Welsh Catholic Church, will not be eligible to vote. Although the Catholic Church is adamant that England and Wales will still be involved as cardinals all discuss and talk amongst themselves, I can't help but think that it's a little unfair...
So after a rather exciting time for the Catholic Church we begin to wonder who might replace Pope Benedict XVI (my money is on the favourite: Cardinal Peter Turkson of Ghana) and wonder whether anything will change... optimistically the church might get a bit more liberal? or am i asking too much?
Tip: keep tracking the development of this story... i have a feeling more lightning, omens and general buzz around the Pope is yet to come...
Monday 11 February 2013
Vamping it up for Lucetta
This is a little post for my friend lucetta who is, to put it lightly, obsessed with a new acoustic-driven indie rock band called "The Vamps"- made up of 3 guys called Tristan, Brad and James. They're a bit of a youtube/twitter/facebook/general internet sensation right here in England as well as right across the world...
(If you haven't heard the Vamps yet here is a little sample: Little Things (one direction cover) - Thus far they mostly do covers though i am told that there might be an album of original material out sometime this year.. am i right boys?)
Now I quite like this band... and that is saying something as i usually hate all gorgeous-boys-singing-love-songs type bands- especially if they are cover based and all over the internet... but anyway! as i was saying.. I quite like this band. I think they're sort of quirky and cute- they are not one direction wannabes, which is a relief as i have to say i'm not all too keen on the originals, but they do cover some of their songs which is ok because, amazingly, they make them bearable. me likey.
Also it's not detrimental to their ratings from me that they are rather... well... lovely. we likey. But i am not naive- good looking guys doesn't necessarily mean good music and thus i conducted a small experiment to make sure my fangirl mind set wasn't completely affecting my musical judgement. Cue the blind fold theory. If i could happily listen to a new cover of theirs with a blind fold on, so i couldn't see their faces, surely i would be able to focus entirely on the music? yes? yes. So that's what i did. Cue the Vamps Bruno Mars Mashup cover. As i listened i realised there was some, by which i mean a lot of, genuine talent here. Something, i have to admit, i was not exactly expecting to hear with the blindfold on (sorry guys... to be fair i am a bit of a cynic at the best of times)!
What i also like about this band is that they feel quite real. They seem a bit like 3 guys (who remind me of my brothers) who have been swept up in youtube fame and the music industry and are still holding on tight to their normal lives. I like that. It's what i usually dislike about the current music scene- that everyone is so other worldly and superior... The Vamps seem more down-to-earth, more tangible almost. There is something about them singing in a hotel room, a basement/garage type thingy, a normal every day set that makes them into normal people- and it can't just be me that thinks that normal people are better than weirdo-celebrities with massive egos?
Lucetta tells me regularly that the vamps are quite literally the best thing that has happened to her in.. forever. Now i'm not sure i'm quite at that stage... though i could be persuaded by the album... At the moment I'm waiting to hear more of their original material- i'm a stickler for singer-songwriters! So i look forward to hearing it... I look forward to seeing whether Lucetta ever gets to meet Tristan or gets a follow from any of them (@LucettaAdams)... I look forward to seeing whether they stay real or just blur into the celebrity stereotype... I look forward to keeping my eye on the Vamps...
Tip: firstly, have a listen to the Vamps so you know what i've been talking about.
secondly, if you have twitter follow @TheVampsband, @TheVampsJames, @TheVampsTristan, @TheVampsBrad and, of course, @vidaadamczewski (that's me)
vamp 1 |vamp|noun1 the upper front part of a boot or shoe.2 (in jazz and popular music) a short, simple introductory passage, usually repeated several times until otherwise instructed.verb
1 [ no obj. ] repeat a short, simple passage of music: the band was vamping gently behind his busy lead guitar.ORIGIN Middle English (denoting the foot of a stocking): shortening ofOld French avantpie, from avant ‘before’ + pie ‘foot.’ The musicalsense of the verb developed from the general sense ‘improvise.’
vamp 2 |vamp| informalnouna woman who uses sexual attraction to exploit men. (umm guys... have you got something to tell us...)
(If you haven't heard the Vamps yet here is a little sample: Little Things (one direction cover) - Thus far they mostly do covers though i am told that there might be an album of original material out sometime this year.. am i right boys?)
Now I quite like this band... and that is saying something as i usually hate all gorgeous-boys-singing-love-songs type bands- especially if they are cover based and all over the internet... but anyway! as i was saying.. I quite like this band. I think they're sort of quirky and cute- they are not one direction wannabes, which is a relief as i have to say i'm not all too keen on the originals, but they do cover some of their songs which is ok because, amazingly, they make them bearable. me likey.
Also it's not detrimental to their ratings from me that they are rather... well... lovely. we likey. But i am not naive- good looking guys doesn't necessarily mean good music and thus i conducted a small experiment to make sure my fangirl mind set wasn't completely affecting my musical judgement. Cue the blind fold theory. If i could happily listen to a new cover of theirs with a blind fold on, so i couldn't see their faces, surely i would be able to focus entirely on the music? yes? yes. So that's what i did. Cue the Vamps Bruno Mars Mashup cover. As i listened i realised there was some, by which i mean a lot of, genuine talent here. Something, i have to admit, i was not exactly expecting to hear with the blindfold on (sorry guys... to be fair i am a bit of a cynic at the best of times)!
What i also like about this band is that they feel quite real. They seem a bit like 3 guys (who remind me of my brothers) who have been swept up in youtube fame and the music industry and are still holding on tight to their normal lives. I like that. It's what i usually dislike about the current music scene- that everyone is so other worldly and superior... The Vamps seem more down-to-earth, more tangible almost. There is something about them singing in a hotel room, a basement/garage type thingy, a normal every day set that makes them into normal people- and it can't just be me that thinks that normal people are better than weirdo-celebrities with massive egos?
Lucetta tells me regularly that the vamps are quite literally the best thing that has happened to her in.. forever. Now i'm not sure i'm quite at that stage... though i could be persuaded by the album... At the moment I'm waiting to hear more of their original material- i'm a stickler for singer-songwriters! So i look forward to hearing it... I look forward to seeing whether Lucetta ever gets to meet Tristan or gets a follow from any of them (@LucettaAdams)... I look forward to seeing whether they stay real or just blur into the celebrity stereotype... I look forward to keeping my eye on the Vamps...
Tip: firstly, have a listen to the Vamps so you know what i've been talking about.
secondly, if you have twitter follow @TheVampsband, @TheVampsJames, @TheVampsTristan, @TheVampsBrad and, of course, @vidaadamczewski (that's me)
vamp 1 |vamp|noun1 the upper front part of a boot or shoe.2 (in jazz and popular music) a short, simple introductory passage, usually repeated several times until otherwise instructed.verb
1 [ no obj. ] repeat a short, simple passage of music: the band was vamping gently behind his busy lead guitar.ORIGIN Middle English (denoting the foot of a stocking): shortening ofOld French avantpie, from avant ‘before’ + pie ‘foot.’ The musicalsense of the verb developed from the general sense ‘improvise.’
vamp 2 |vamp| informalnouna woman who uses sexual attraction to exploit men. (umm guys... have you got something to tell us...)
Saturday 9 February 2013
"Findus some more horses"
When i heard the reports of possible 100% horse meat lasagne my initial reaction was to laugh, then to retch and then to properly consider it. During the war no one would have turned their nose at a bit of horse... but then i suppose you were aware that that was what you were dealing with... What shocked me most about it was the idea that the food it was found in was so processed that horse meat was virtually indistinguishable from beef.
It worries me that we are so used to just bunging a ready meal in the oven that we don't really even stop to think what sort of things it might have in it- and i'm not just talking about horses! the sheer number of chemicals used to make certain foods taste and look a certain way is unbelievable. From preservatives, to colourings, additives to fat substitutes- we eat them all a regular basis but we hardly ever think about them. Take... Pop tarts for example. I have nothing against pop tarts... from what i've heard they're quite delicious... but i think there is something quite disconcerting about the fact that they have icing on top that doesn't change shape even after being toasted... Normal icing would melt. Normal icing would at the very least get a bit sticky and soft. Normal icing would not stay rock solid on top of the biscuit.
And that is just one example of scientists working for huge companies to make food do things it would never normally do! Soft scoop ice-cream... cake mix... etc. etc. We live in a world where food is a million dollar industry and one that provides us with cheap food that we can heat up and eat in less than 40 seconds. A world in which the sound of a fork piercing the plastic cover on a ready meal is almost constant. A world in which people are obese but they don't know why.
We need to stop eating processed food even if it claims to be healthy, claims to be natural and claims to be humane- because as we know ready meals aren't always what they claim to be. Yes, there is a need for cheap food products but we can help feed poor families using foods that aren't made of miscellaneous meats and a cocktail of chemicals...
So... Tesco and Aldi with your "Findus some more horses" products- I know Waitrose has been putting a bit of a Heston Blumenthal twist on some of it's preprepared foods recently but that doesn't mean you have to too!
Tip: From now on before tucking into my lasagne i will temptingly hold a sugar lump over it, or alternatively a handful of hay or oats. I suggest you do the same.
Tip: From now on before tucking into my lasagne i will temptingly hold a sugar lump over it, or alternatively a handful of hay or oats. I suggest you do the same.
Tuesday 5 February 2013
Analysing over analysis.
Now, i wonder how many of you can remember the last time you over analysed a piece of literature. For me it was at approximately 4 minutes past 12 today- and it was absolutely horrendous. It felt like unpicking a seam in a piece of clothing and then untwisting the thread fibres so that you end up with a tiny, feeble piece of fluff that is pretending that it was once part of the full garment.
[for those of you unfamiliar with over analysing literature I shall give you a quick step by step guide:
1: read the above paragraph 4 times.
2: highlight the following words and phrases "approximately" "4 minutes past 12""absolutely horrendous" "unpicking a seam" "untwisting... fibres" "feeble piece of fluff"
3: now spend 10 minutes contemplating "what the author's aim was", "the tone and atmosphere that the quotations convey" and "the styles, approaches, tools and techniques the author uses".
4: Now write up your thoughts using words like "shows", "evokes", "suggests", "infers", "references", "symbolises" etc. etc. And remember- You must use the Point, Evidence, Explanation (P.E.E) structure in your paragraphs.
5: repeat 60 times and try to stretch your answer into a whole 6 page essay. fun times.]
No wonder people don't like learning english literature!? It's so tiresome. It's just a constant stream of essays requiring you to ruin every book or poem or play you ever loved and turn it into a selection of carefully chosen quotations and carefully sculpted A* analysis paragraphs. English should be about more than just analysing and pulling apart authors' work. It ought to be about manipulating your own language, communicating your ideas and passions, using words to express yourself and your opinions and learning to love and appreciate literature- NOT about learning to destroy and dissect it!
I'm sure John Steinbeck and George Orwell (among others) would be horrified to hear that their work was the source of such great pain and irritation for the very minds that they were trying to educate and influence. I'm sure there are few poets that would like to know that every line they ever wrote was scrutinised and pulled apart on a daily basis, that people would search for reasons behind trivial phrases and coincidental or subconscious language choices. The best authors write instinctively- they don't carefully choose each word and meticulously link each phrase to other images they've explored; it's usually natural, involuntary and not over thought.
We are nurturing a hate for the finest literature that we have access to. We are making young people despise the names "Wilfred Owen", "Jane Austen", "Charlotte Bronte", "Ernest Hemingway", "Virginia Woolf", "Harper Lee".... We are letting a mark based system flourish while allowing true passion and excitement decay. We don't encourage individuality and self-expression. It just about grades, and grades are just about analysing. On the rare occasions that students can discuss something they are genuinely enthusiastic about it holds less than half the number of marks of an essay that is based on a structure provided by the teacher. Difference and originality are not rewarded.
Tip: whenever you can don't analyse the things you read. Just read and digest. Let the tricks that the author uses to inspire emotions in you go unanalysed. Writing is subliminal- it's meant to make you feel things without you being able to pin point how. It's mean to represent the way we interact in real life- the fact that sometimes we can't work out why we feel how we feel. We are human. Literature is human. Analysing... that's unnatural.
[for those of you unfamiliar with over analysing literature I shall give you a quick step by step guide:
1: read the above paragraph 4 times.
2: highlight the following words and phrases "approximately" "4 minutes past 12""absolutely horrendous" "unpicking a seam" "untwisting... fibres" "feeble piece of fluff"
3: now spend 10 minutes contemplating "what the author's aim was", "the tone and atmosphere that the quotations convey" and "the styles, approaches, tools and techniques the author uses".
4: Now write up your thoughts using words like "shows", "evokes", "suggests", "infers", "references", "symbolises" etc. etc. And remember- You must use the Point, Evidence, Explanation (P.E.E) structure in your paragraphs.
5: repeat 60 times and try to stretch your answer into a whole 6 page essay. fun times.]
No wonder people don't like learning english literature!? It's so tiresome. It's just a constant stream of essays requiring you to ruin every book or poem or play you ever loved and turn it into a selection of carefully chosen quotations and carefully sculpted A* analysis paragraphs. English should be about more than just analysing and pulling apart authors' work. It ought to be about manipulating your own language, communicating your ideas and passions, using words to express yourself and your opinions and learning to love and appreciate literature- NOT about learning to destroy and dissect it!
I'm sure John Steinbeck and George Orwell (among others) would be horrified to hear that their work was the source of such great pain and irritation for the very minds that they were trying to educate and influence. I'm sure there are few poets that would like to know that every line they ever wrote was scrutinised and pulled apart on a daily basis, that people would search for reasons behind trivial phrases and coincidental or subconscious language choices. The best authors write instinctively- they don't carefully choose each word and meticulously link each phrase to other images they've explored; it's usually natural, involuntary and not over thought.
We are nurturing a hate for the finest literature that we have access to. We are making young people despise the names "Wilfred Owen", "Jane Austen", "Charlotte Bronte", "Ernest Hemingway", "Virginia Woolf", "Harper Lee".... We are letting a mark based system flourish while allowing true passion and excitement decay. We don't encourage individuality and self-expression. It just about grades, and grades are just about analysing. On the rare occasions that students can discuss something they are genuinely enthusiastic about it holds less than half the number of marks of an essay that is based on a structure provided by the teacher. Difference and originality are not rewarded.
Tip: whenever you can don't analyse the things you read. Just read and digest. Let the tricks that the author uses to inspire emotions in you go unanalysed. Writing is subliminal- it's meant to make you feel things without you being able to pin point how. It's mean to represent the way we interact in real life- the fact that sometimes we can't work out why we feel how we feel. We are human. Literature is human. Analysing... that's unnatural.
Monday 4 February 2013
Chris Huhne fails his driving test
Chris Huhne has now admitted to making his then wife take the blame for his speeding. It actually makes me laugh that last year he was ranting about how he denied the charges and would fight reporters in the courts and even last month he was still determinedly pleading "not guilty", yet now... now he's resigned as an MP and is probably (not) looking forward to a spell in prison. I wonder how he'll go down in jail... not great, i imagine.
What really strikes me about this story is how the AA have responded. They said that it "sent a clear message" to other drivers who consider making other people take the blame for their road offences. It makes you think about just how often this sort of thing happens... Apparently we are whole country of people telling their less successful spouse to take the blame for their road rage- sounds promising....
The other major knock on effect that it will have is that suddenly there is a window open in Eastleigh for another party to take the majority there in the next general election- It looks like Eastleigh is about to get a lot less liberal and a bit more... well.... either UKIP or conservative (now there is a lose lose situation!). I have never liked the liberal democrats and i have certainly never liked Chris Huhne but he is a hell of a lot better than Nigel Farage! Let's just hope this by-election doesn't leave us with a UKIP seat... we have steered pretty much clear of them so far and thank goodness for that, i say!
I suppose we should all tut and shake our heads at Huhne but do we really have the time? He's resigned. Once you've got the facts there isn't much more to discuss. I think the AA making a sort of (Im)moral example of him is a little excessive. He doesn't have the moral fibre we would like to see in our politicians but, if we're honest, can any of us name one politician who we actually think doesn't have any dirty secrets? I don't think so. Yes, we do all dislike Huhne. And Yes, he is an idiot for doing it. But if there is one thing we should really take from it, it's the fact that he managed to get away with it for so long- 10 YEARS!?! really? what is our justice system coming to? We need a few more Poirots methinks...
Tip: if you are living in the Eastleigh constituency please don't vote in a conservative or UKIP or any one else like that for that matter. Pleaassssseeeeeeeee.
What really strikes me about this story is how the AA have responded. They said that it "sent a clear message" to other drivers who consider making other people take the blame for their road offences. It makes you think about just how often this sort of thing happens... Apparently we are whole country of people telling their less successful spouse to take the blame for their road rage- sounds promising....
The other major knock on effect that it will have is that suddenly there is a window open in Eastleigh for another party to take the majority there in the next general election- It looks like Eastleigh is about to get a lot less liberal and a bit more... well.... either UKIP or conservative (now there is a lose lose situation!). I have never liked the liberal democrats and i have certainly never liked Chris Huhne but he is a hell of a lot better than Nigel Farage! Let's just hope this by-election doesn't leave us with a UKIP seat... we have steered pretty much clear of them so far and thank goodness for that, i say!
I suppose we should all tut and shake our heads at Huhne but do we really have the time? He's resigned. Once you've got the facts there isn't much more to discuss. I think the AA making a sort of (Im)moral example of him is a little excessive. He doesn't have the moral fibre we would like to see in our politicians but, if we're honest, can any of us name one politician who we actually think doesn't have any dirty secrets? I don't think so. Yes, we do all dislike Huhne. And Yes, he is an idiot for doing it. But if there is one thing we should really take from it, it's the fact that he managed to get away with it for so long- 10 YEARS!?! really? what is our justice system coming to? We need a few more Poirots methinks...
Tip: if you are living in the Eastleigh constituency please don't vote in a conservative or UKIP or any one else like that for that matter. Pleaassssseeeeeeeee.
Saturday 2 February 2013
men are from... earth?
I often notice that people are very quick to assume that if someone has been sexist then they must have insulted a woman. This is not the case. In fact there is even an element of sexism involved in assuming that it is men that are sexist towards women.
Actually we have an ingrained, sort of societal sexism towards men. The ideal man traits, the blokish characteristics, the physical prowess that we connect with the male sex. We assume that men like football and wrestling. That they either work in a suit or in a uniform. We assume that all men are macho and that men aren't sensitive or emotional. We tend to connect emotion, vulnerability and tenderness with women and strength, power and brutality with men.
This seemingly condoned sexism is encouraged by the images of men, and women for that matter, in the media- in tv programmes, films and even on the news. How often do you watch the women's football team play? my guess is not all too often. You could say that not being aware of the female football culture was sexist towards women and you would be right, but it is also sexist towards men. It creates a link between football and men. It creates the idea of a "real man". Are there "fake" men? honestly.
The "real" man probably watches football, topless, reeking of lynx, with a beer in one hand and the other hand up a woman's skirt- I'm pretty sure that that's more of a fantasy to most men. The "fake" man on the other hand probably anxiously tries to successfully do a press up when trying to impress a girl while sweating, reeking of nervous sweat and tears.
We are sexist towards men in that we assume they like the colour blue. We are sexist towards men in that we assume that they like sport. We are sexist towards men in that we don't think they should stay at home and look after children. We are sexist towards men in that we think they should be out and about busily being a "real" man. We are sexist about men a hell of a lot but we don't admit it, we don't acknowledge it and we often aren't even aware of the gender stereotyping we enforce on both men and women.
(Tip) So next time you accuse someone of being sexist just think about whether you are actually a incy bit sexist yourself. You might think the least sexist thing to do is to empower women with your patronising, self-motivation, female initiative rubbish, but actually the least sexist thing to do might be to stop forcing men to watch top gear and stop asking them to fix your bicycle- they probably know a woman who is much better at it than them anyway.
Actually we have an ingrained, sort of societal sexism towards men. The ideal man traits, the blokish characteristics, the physical prowess that we connect with the male sex. We assume that men like football and wrestling. That they either work in a suit or in a uniform. We assume that all men are macho and that men aren't sensitive or emotional. We tend to connect emotion, vulnerability and tenderness with women and strength, power and brutality with men.
This seemingly condoned sexism is encouraged by the images of men, and women for that matter, in the media- in tv programmes, films and even on the news. How often do you watch the women's football team play? my guess is not all too often. You could say that not being aware of the female football culture was sexist towards women and you would be right, but it is also sexist towards men. It creates a link between football and men. It creates the idea of a "real man". Are there "fake" men? honestly.
The "real" man probably watches football, topless, reeking of lynx, with a beer in one hand and the other hand up a woman's skirt- I'm pretty sure that that's more of a fantasy to most men. The "fake" man on the other hand probably anxiously tries to successfully do a press up when trying to impress a girl while sweating, reeking of nervous sweat and tears.
We are sexist towards men in that we assume they like the colour blue. We are sexist towards men in that we assume that they like sport. We are sexist towards men in that we don't think they should stay at home and look after children. We are sexist towards men in that we think they should be out and about busily being a "real" man. We are sexist about men a hell of a lot but we don't admit it, we don't acknowledge it and we often aren't even aware of the gender stereotyping we enforce on both men and women.
(Tip) So next time you accuse someone of being sexist just think about whether you are actually a incy bit sexist yourself. You might think the least sexist thing to do is to empower women with your patronising, self-motivation, female initiative rubbish, but actually the least sexist thing to do might be to stop forcing men to watch top gear and stop asking them to fix your bicycle- they probably know a woman who is much better at it than them anyway.
Friday 1 February 2013
Facebook Faces Face the Facts
"Aww babes you look totez beautz"
"Aww fanks! but you must be talking about your sex pot self"
"OMG awww! but seriously-this is such a nice pic!"
400 "awwws" later and some people who dislike each other are still pretending to be best mates who genuinely think each other are "beauts". The fact is that for every 200 likes, your edited selfie picture becomes less and less real. You become an object of the internet- only liked because you popped up on someone's newsfeed, only complimented because your photo is air brushed and filtered. Your photoshopped, social networking face is not who you really are at all. The person you really are is a ordinary enough human being with eyes, nose and mouth all arranged in a normal enough way. You probably have a spot or scar on your forehead. You probably have bags under your eyes. You probably don't look anything like your profile picture that everyone says is so "stunning". urgh.
You probably aren't friends with 600 people and you probably, if we're honest, don't think "Babyjustwantstolivelovelaugh pink_rabbit xx :*:*" is that pretty. In fact you probably don't even know her real name. You probably sit at home, eating a digestive thinking "urgh. she's such a poser! and she's such a bitch." but as you click the like button you know that if you weren't frenemies with her you would probably have far fewer friends and far more enemies. You probably don't want to comment "awww" but you do because it's what everyone does. She probably doesn't want to respond to your comment by saying "awww-but you!" She'd rather write "and why are you commenting you ugly cow?" but she won't.
Most of us do it. Most of us pretend to be friends with people who we don't know that well, don't like that much and don't really care about. It occurred even before Facebook and twitter and all of those sites provided a platform for it. It's present in the way we civilly talk to colleagues, to friends of friends and even in the way we talk to our families. We are constantly acting. Constantly trying to keep up the pretence of our popularity, social status and intelligence. As humans it's only natural to want to be seen from the best angle, in the best light, at your best. But as friends, family members, colleagues it's also important for us to be honest with ourselves and with each other. We have to learn to accept and deal with our faults- maybe learn to love them. We have to realise that pretending to be friends with someone is no substitute for a real friendship.
Tip: Be a bit more honest with yourself. That's all. Oh and please stop saying "aww babes you are such a hotty omg aww :*"- no one needs it in their life. It is a waste of pixels.
(in response to http://amyand7billion.blogspot.co.uk/)
"Aww fanks! but you must be talking about your sex pot self"
"OMG awww! but seriously-this is such a nice pic!"
400 "awwws" later and some people who dislike each other are still pretending to be best mates who genuinely think each other are "beauts". The fact is that for every 200 likes, your edited selfie picture becomes less and less real. You become an object of the internet- only liked because you popped up on someone's newsfeed, only complimented because your photo is air brushed and filtered. Your photoshopped, social networking face is not who you really are at all. The person you really are is a ordinary enough human being with eyes, nose and mouth all arranged in a normal enough way. You probably have a spot or scar on your forehead. You probably have bags under your eyes. You probably don't look anything like your profile picture that everyone says is so "stunning". urgh.
You probably aren't friends with 600 people and you probably, if we're honest, don't think "Babyjustwantstolivelovelaugh pink_rabbit xx :*:*" is that pretty. In fact you probably don't even know her real name. You probably sit at home, eating a digestive thinking "urgh. she's such a poser! and she's such a bitch." but as you click the like button you know that if you weren't frenemies with her you would probably have far fewer friends and far more enemies. You probably don't want to comment "awww" but you do because it's what everyone does. She probably doesn't want to respond to your comment by saying "awww-but you!" She'd rather write "and why are you commenting you ugly cow?" but she won't.
Most of us do it. Most of us pretend to be friends with people who we don't know that well, don't like that much and don't really care about. It occurred even before Facebook and twitter and all of those sites provided a platform for it. It's present in the way we civilly talk to colleagues, to friends of friends and even in the way we talk to our families. We are constantly acting. Constantly trying to keep up the pretence of our popularity, social status and intelligence. As humans it's only natural to want to be seen from the best angle, in the best light, at your best. But as friends, family members, colleagues it's also important for us to be honest with ourselves and with each other. We have to learn to accept and deal with our faults- maybe learn to love them. We have to realise that pretending to be friends with someone is no substitute for a real friendship.
Tip: Be a bit more honest with yourself. That's all. Oh and please stop saying "aww babes you are such a hotty omg aww :*"- no one needs it in their life. It is a waste of pixels.
(in response to http://amyand7billion.blogspot.co.uk/)
poverty, prejudice and the politically incorrect
So I wrote a little post about Iain Duncan Smith for my friend's blog and i wondered if you'd like to have a read:
http://politicsforteenagers.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/the-poverty-of-iain-duncan-smiths-ideas.html
The style is a little different but i thing the message still rings true- Our politicians don't understand how the poor live and don't appear to be attempting to either. They seem to think if they can just sweep a whole demographic of people under the carpet and then make some cuts to clear the defect (unsuccessfully, i might add) that affect those that need the support the most. It's absolutely disgusting, to be honest. It's a combination of prejudice, ignorance and stupidity- and to think we let these people run our country?! Well, i don't know about you, but i can't wait for the revolution!
Tip: as I've said before let's try and make ourselves heard and speak out against this ridiculous, loathsome behaviour. Politicians are meant to represent the people and i don't think they're doing a very good job.
http://politicsforteenagers.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/the-poverty-of-iain-duncan-smiths-ideas.html
The style is a little different but i thing the message still rings true- Our politicians don't understand how the poor live and don't appear to be attempting to either. They seem to think if they can just sweep a whole demographic of people under the carpet and then make some cuts to clear the defect (unsuccessfully, i might add) that affect those that need the support the most. It's absolutely disgusting, to be honest. It's a combination of prejudice, ignorance and stupidity- and to think we let these people run our country?! Well, i don't know about you, but i can't wait for the revolution!
Tip: as I've said before let's try and make ourselves heard and speak out against this ridiculous, loathsome behaviour. Politicians are meant to represent the people and i don't think they're doing a very good job.
Thursday 31 January 2013
Cameron's Kitchen Table #2
*A villa in the South of France*
David is collapsed on a deckchair, his nose and cheeks slowly roasting in the sun.
He wakes slowly and wipes away the string of saliva dribbling out of his mouth.
David: Oh Ow! Oh damn, damn, damn!
Samantha: what have you done? You've gone bright red!
David: I've got sunburn! Bloody European weather.
Samantha: Awww-
David: Bloody Europeans full stop.
Samantha: that's a little extreme isn't it darling?
David: Bloody vile tea. Bloody hot sun. Bloody continental breakfasts.
Samantha: aren't you enjoying yourself dearest?
David: I know! I'll bloody well cut off all communication with them. That's it! I'm taking lovely, cold, conservative Britain out of the EU. Bloody well serves them right too! they'll miss us, they will!
Samantha: don't you mean we'll miss them?
David: No. I mean what do they ever do for us? eh?
Samantha: oh well i don't know... umm... We get those EHIC thingies and... and well we get to holiday here every now and again! Oh and I think it... it means we're part of the world's largest economic zone! And easy trading... i guess that's a plus.
David: That's true. BUT I've got to punish them some how. I know! I'm going to threaten to leave the EU. That'll teach them to mess with the Camerons. They can take all of their European Union benefits and .... and... not give them to us! Yeah. Ha. Humph.
Tip: let's not vote the conservatives in again so we actually have to consider leaving the EU. Please. Thanks. Good.
if you missed camerzzz kitchen table take 1 you can find it here- http://thenobodyguide.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/camerons-kitchen-table-1.html
if you missed camerzzz kitchen table take 1 you can find it here- http://thenobodyguide.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/camerons-kitchen-table-1.html
Wednesday 30 January 2013
16 reasons to let 16 year olds vote
As you've probably got from the title i thought i'd tell you a little bit about why giving the vote to 16 year olds in the UK is a good idea.... So here we go...
1: 16 year olds have to take part in compulsory citizenship lessons so they aren't completely oblivious to politics
2: At 16 the government clearly thinks you are reasonably responsible as you're allowed to leave home, get married, have sex, join the armed forces, own premium bonds and work full time. methinks that's quite a bit of responsibility why not add voting to the pile?
3: You can actively take part in politics at any age, especially in your teens. For example you can join the Labour party at 14. Why not let people vote for the parties they are members of?
4: 16 year olds can vote in Austria, Brazil and Argentina amongst others.
5: to continue from point 2- you can also claim benefits, you have to pay more for travel and you have to pay for your prescriptions. Therefore why can't 16 year olds be involved in what happens to these expenses? Why can't they help choose whether travel costs go up, the NHS gets privatised or benefits get cut? Why can't they help vote for the party that will help them to survive?
6: Prisoners can't vote- do we compare 16 year olds to prisoners?
7: It would help prevent governments ignoring the needs and wants of their young people. Would Gove have been able to damage the education system so much if 16 year olds had the vote?
8: Governments make 16 year olds into children when in fact they have finished their school education and are about to become members of the community who no longer rely on their parents for very much including their parents choosing which government represents them.
9: Not giving 16 year olds the vote makes the rest of the public assume that 16 year olds are not mature, responsible or well-informed which encourages stereotyping and prejudice- that's not right.
10: Some working 16 year olds pay tax. The government relies on their input in the same way that it relies on 18 year olds- maybe it should start listening to them.
11: Arguably 18 year olds are less enthused about politics because they have already left education and have not had to contribute and participate in citizenship lessons. Some 16 year olds have finished their citizenship courses and according to the education system know all they need to know about politics- why let that knowledge stagnate? Lowering the voting age could ensure that young people continue to be informed about politics for a longer amount of time.
12: If we don't listen to 16 year olds in a controlled and well structured way, they might try to voice their opinions in an uncontrolled and unregulated way- do we need more riots because we won't respect our young people's intelligence?
13: The reason we are even considering lowering the age of voting is evidence that we understand that 16 year olds play an important role in politics nowadays.
14: We often assume that the people we do let vote fulfil all of the criteria that we are using to justify not letting 16 year olds vote. Sadly not all middle aged people are mature, responsible or well-informed.
15: many people say that 16 year olds have less "stake" in the country. This isn't true however- as young people are likely to spend the most time in the country (because they have the rest of their lives to live) after it's been changed by a government they couldn't choose, it seems a little unfair to suggest that they are lesser citizens who aren't going to be as affected by the bad choices of parliament.
16: We live in a democracy. 16 year olds are just as important as 18 year olds (and everyone else for that matter) and therefore should have equal say in what happens in their country. It's not fair to penalise them for their age when there are many reasons (some of which are stated above) that say they should definitely be given the vote. It just makes sense.
And there you have it. Let us vote. I'm a young person and I'd like to vote. In fact I'd love to vote and I think I am entitled to do so. I'd also love to see a bit of positive change politically in our country- we've been rather deprived of good decisions methinks.
TIP: Help 16 year olds get the vote. Support the campaign. Do some research. Help us out. Let us vote.
this is one of my fave blogs: http://politicsforteenagers.blogspot.co.uk/?m=1
1: 16 year olds have to take part in compulsory citizenship lessons so they aren't completely oblivious to politics
2: At 16 the government clearly thinks you are reasonably responsible as you're allowed to leave home, get married, have sex, join the armed forces, own premium bonds and work full time. methinks that's quite a bit of responsibility why not add voting to the pile?
3: You can actively take part in politics at any age, especially in your teens. For example you can join the Labour party at 14. Why not let people vote for the parties they are members of?
4: 16 year olds can vote in Austria, Brazil and Argentina amongst others.
5: to continue from point 2- you can also claim benefits, you have to pay more for travel and you have to pay for your prescriptions. Therefore why can't 16 year olds be involved in what happens to these expenses? Why can't they help choose whether travel costs go up, the NHS gets privatised or benefits get cut? Why can't they help vote for the party that will help them to survive?
6: Prisoners can't vote- do we compare 16 year olds to prisoners?
7: It would help prevent governments ignoring the needs and wants of their young people. Would Gove have been able to damage the education system so much if 16 year olds had the vote?
8: Governments make 16 year olds into children when in fact they have finished their school education and are about to become members of the community who no longer rely on their parents for very much including their parents choosing which government represents them.
9: Not giving 16 year olds the vote makes the rest of the public assume that 16 year olds are not mature, responsible or well-informed which encourages stereotyping and prejudice- that's not right.
10: Some working 16 year olds pay tax. The government relies on their input in the same way that it relies on 18 year olds- maybe it should start listening to them.
11: Arguably 18 year olds are less enthused about politics because they have already left education and have not had to contribute and participate in citizenship lessons. Some 16 year olds have finished their citizenship courses and according to the education system know all they need to know about politics- why let that knowledge stagnate? Lowering the voting age could ensure that young people continue to be informed about politics for a longer amount of time.
12: If we don't listen to 16 year olds in a controlled and well structured way, they might try to voice their opinions in an uncontrolled and unregulated way- do we need more riots because we won't respect our young people's intelligence?
13: The reason we are even considering lowering the age of voting is evidence that we understand that 16 year olds play an important role in politics nowadays.
14: We often assume that the people we do let vote fulfil all of the criteria that we are using to justify not letting 16 year olds vote. Sadly not all middle aged people are mature, responsible or well-informed.
15: many people say that 16 year olds have less "stake" in the country. This isn't true however- as young people are likely to spend the most time in the country (because they have the rest of their lives to live) after it's been changed by a government they couldn't choose, it seems a little unfair to suggest that they are lesser citizens who aren't going to be as affected by the bad choices of parliament.
16: We live in a democracy. 16 year olds are just as important as 18 year olds (and everyone else for that matter) and therefore should have equal say in what happens in their country. It's not fair to penalise them for their age when there are many reasons (some of which are stated above) that say they should definitely be given the vote. It just makes sense.
And there you have it. Let us vote. I'm a young person and I'd like to vote. In fact I'd love to vote and I think I am entitled to do so. I'd also love to see a bit of positive change politically in our country- we've been rather deprived of good decisions methinks.
TIP: Help 16 year olds get the vote. Support the campaign. Do some research. Help us out. Let us vote.
this is one of my fave blogs: http://politicsforteenagers.blogspot.co.uk/?m=1
Tuesday 29 January 2013
Thinspiration: what's not to hate?
as i pour half a teaspoon of soya milk onto my bland, greyish muesli and peer through my glass of warm water to the article behind that dictates to me the top 10 ways to get my "bikini body" and tells me that size 8 is the new size 80, i find myself wondering if it's all just a load of thinspiration rubbish. What is a bikini body? It's certainly not an emaciated size 0, teeny weeny, all ribs and defined organs corpse lying on a beach swamped by even the smallest bikini they sell in TOPSHOP.
And yet we still find ourselves being taught that thin is better, thin is hotter, thin is... well.. thinner. We are taught to aspire to be like the cat walk models who only eat on Sundays and the women modelling lingerie on posters and TV who have the perfect figure and so decide to shout it out by modelling what is basically a scrap of badly diamanted fabric. We are inspired to lose weight any way we can by magazines that don't actually know what we look like and how thin we are.
Anorexia is an ever growing problem in the UK and we ought to be inspiring girls to avoid developing eating disorders not telling them that it's the only way they are ever going to achieve the supermodel body they've always wanted!
So I'm saying no to 'bikini body' promoting magazines. I'm saying no to size 0 models telling us that it's so lovely being skeletal. I'm saying no to thinspiration, no to eating disorders and no to my soya milk and muesli- give me nutella on toast any day!!
Tip: Feel inspired not to be thinspired. You are great the way you are.
And yet we still find ourselves being taught that thin is better, thin is hotter, thin is... well.. thinner. We are taught to aspire to be like the cat walk models who only eat on Sundays and the women modelling lingerie on posters and TV who have the perfect figure and so decide to shout it out by modelling what is basically a scrap of badly diamanted fabric. We are inspired to lose weight any way we can by magazines that don't actually know what we look like and how thin we are.
Anorexia is an ever growing problem in the UK and we ought to be inspiring girls to avoid developing eating disorders not telling them that it's the only way they are ever going to achieve the supermodel body they've always wanted!
So I'm saying no to 'bikini body' promoting magazines. I'm saying no to size 0 models telling us that it's so lovely being skeletal. I'm saying no to thinspiration, no to eating disorders and no to my soya milk and muesli- give me nutella on toast any day!!
Tip: Feel inspired not to be thinspired. You are great the way you are.
Professional. Affordable. Impossible.
I thought i'd just run a few hair fashions past you:
My hair is long, blonde and completely untameable but apparently that doesn't matter nowadays: cue the matted sheep dog style-
I have one major problem with these various takes on the "i lost my hair brush" look which is that surely spending 3 hours arranging, salt spraying, back combing and curling your hair to achieve a "just rolled of bed" appearance is a bit... well... a bit of a waste of time?
The other style i could attempt is tresemme chic-
This is also known as impossibly glossy hair arranged into flat panes of hair perfectly surrounding your face and is designed for a studio, NOT for walking down a very busy London road on a windy day.
The next style is weirdly structural/ GaGa-esque.
I like to call it Hair-chitecture:
Now whatever this style aims to do it isn't worth it. It usually goes one of two ways- the wig (in which your hair looks separate from your body and therefore wig-like) or the unfortunate unicorn (in which your hair represents a damaged unicorn horn).
The final look is... well it is what it is I suppose...
RAINBOW.
Sometimes, i'll admit, this looks awesome. Sometimes, however, it looks like you are either a terrible decision maker, colour blind or completely blind or like you have just been involved in a serious incident involving a paint shop and some dynamite.
So there you have it- 4 ways to, or not to, style your hair. If i had to choose one i would probably join the matted sheep dogs- at least you could disguise it as being the result of a genuine loss of a hair brush or lack of time in the morning.... couldn't you?
A little Tip: wear your hair however you like and if you discover a way of styling your hair that actually works and is 100% risk free i would LOVE to hear from you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)