What a brilliant film! Everything about the film helped to reinforce the topic of the lecture which I found helped me to memorize the terms by seeing them, for example Chris talked about filtering language to cut out forms of resistance by abolishing certain words; which means if there is no word for the emotion or idea it cannot be expressed. This was shown through Winston's job in which he looked through newspaper articles and reported anything that could be construed as resistance. In addition the final part of the film part of the film where Winston is asked during his reprogramming how many fingers he is holding up and Winston replies the correct answer but the questioner wants him to admit that it is 5 by replacing the word five with four. This reinforces the principal that if you control words and language you can control what people think and say.
At the end I was left questioning what had happened because I felt it was a bit obscure, which was created by the scene where Winston writes the sum two plus two but leaves the answer blank. This I believe does indicate that Winston is eventually brain washed as he hesitates to put the answer, indicating that his mind set has changed as before he would have put four without hesitating.
Another thing that could be inferred is that this film bears a strong resemblance to Lang's 'Metroplis' which shows the robotic conditioned workers in uniforms drifting along to work. This was also Hitler's favourite film and it is easy to see that he based some of his ideals of a perfect Germany on the film, therefore the programming of people it seems has actually been translated from screen to real life. An issue I think Orwell foresaw happening in the modern age.
Wednesday 9 December 2009
Wednesday 2 December 2009
1984
This lecture I found to be incredibly interesting from an English students perspective, because although books produce emotion within readers through emotive language I never considered it a form of manipulation before; which programmes the reader to feel a certain way or be persuaded to see something from the writers point of view.
I also felt this connected well to the lecture on Freudian philosophy for example writers manipulate language to express their views and insecurities, which shows some evidence according to Freud of people dealing with core issues through language, as that is what makes up their thought processes and shapes their ideologies. Projection is the term I would associate with this form of manipulation, just a reminder for those who have forgotten, projection is a way of dealing with a core issue a sort of defense mechanism which causes the subject to push their issues onto others in order to deal with it themselves and make others feel equally bad. This is the term I would use because the reader is having to endure the projection of ideas by reading a text which results in manipulation, as their perspective may be changed after reading that text.
In addition I felt this novel connected really well with Aldous Huxley's 'Brave New World' as the reference of using language to programme and control people's behaviour is a prominent theme in Huxley's novel. For example by playing certain things to children in their sleep and banning literature and art, anything which would encourage people to think for themselves and manipulate them to think differently which in the novel was considered dangerous. It also has communist undertones as well which is shown through the worker's alienation towards the products they have forged. Therefore these two novels share certain parallels which I would recommend other people take a look at.
I also felt this connected well to the lecture on Freudian philosophy for example writers manipulate language to express their views and insecurities, which shows some evidence according to Freud of people dealing with core issues through language, as that is what makes up their thought processes and shapes their ideologies. Projection is the term I would associate with this form of manipulation, just a reminder for those who have forgotten, projection is a way of dealing with a core issue a sort of defense mechanism which causes the subject to push their issues onto others in order to deal with it themselves and make others feel equally bad. This is the term I would use because the reader is having to endure the projection of ideas by reading a text which results in manipulation, as their perspective may be changed after reading that text.
In addition I felt this novel connected really well with Aldous Huxley's 'Brave New World' as the reference of using language to programme and control people's behaviour is a prominent theme in Huxley's novel. For example by playing certain things to children in their sleep and banning literature and art, anything which would encourage people to think for themselves and manipulate them to think differently which in the novel was considered dangerous. It also has communist undertones as well which is shown through the worker's alienation towards the products they have forged. Therefore these two novels share certain parallels which I would recommend other people take a look at.
Wednesday 25 November 2009
The Grapes of Wrath
I found the viewing of the Grapes of the Wrath to be the most the useful in understanding the novel read before it, however in the lecture it was suggested that the story is written in a newspaper form but I disagree with this as it seems to me it is written in the poetic narrative of most novels. "To the red country and part of the grey country of Oklahoma the last rains came gently, and they did not cut the scarred earth". I would argue that it is does state the stages of development and situations mixed with poetic descriptions giving the novel more of a diary feel, as the news is reported free of poetic description completely.
In addition I was shocked at the portrayal of the ranch work camps in the film as they closely resembled concentration camps, for example the barbed wire fences and the guards patrolling the fences at night. I am not positive why the camps were portrayed this way but I can only guess, I'm not sure whether it was meant to contribute to the aim of creating a distasteful image of the government to audiences, in order to further impress upon them the wrong doings of the government, which is already shown at the beginning of the film when the government takes the farmer's land which does the belong to them.
Also some of the images of poverty were disturbing but extremely effect at conveying the destitution of the people, which I feel strays from usual depictions and establishes new, bold and hard hitting images that have a greater impact on the audience, I am of course referring to a starving man being breast fed to cure him of his starvation. This depiction is so effective because it is so savage and shows the possible extremes those people endured in order to survive.
In addition I was shocked at the portrayal of the ranch work camps in the film as they closely resembled concentration camps, for example the barbed wire fences and the guards patrolling the fences at night. I am not positive why the camps were portrayed this way but I can only guess, I'm not sure whether it was meant to contribute to the aim of creating a distasteful image of the government to audiences, in order to further impress upon them the wrong doings of the government, which is already shown at the beginning of the film when the government takes the farmer's land which does the belong to them.
Also some of the images of poverty were disturbing but extremely effect at conveying the destitution of the people, which I feel strays from usual depictions and establishes new, bold and hard hitting images that have a greater impact on the audience, I am of course referring to a starving man being breast fed to cure him of his starvation. This depiction is so effective because it is so savage and shows the possible extremes those people endured in order to survive.
Wednesday 11 November 2009
"Rosebud"
What a stark contrast the representation of Lord Northcliffe is in 'Citizen Kane' compared to 'The Real Lord Northcliffe'. Northcliffe in 'Citizen Kane' is violent, cold (at times) and obsessed with his work, which presents a more realistic character that has good and bad aspects within his personality; which is a huge contrast to Owen's glowing account that shows a two dimensional character that only works and travels.
The main allure of the film for me however was the mystery surrounding the name "Rosebud" which is shown at the beginning of the film as Lord Northcliffe's dying words, the meaning of these last words is searched and debated throughout the film. I think that the significance of this word is that it demonstrates his mourning for his childhood bliss, and the sled"Rosebud" represents the last regret that passes his lips; that he could not remain stranded in those days. Another indication is the snow dome he drops, which resembles his snow covered childhood home. Another interpretation could be that his method of producing the news which can be best shown in this quote ""You provide the pictures, we'll provide the war". This could indicate that the interweaving layers of a rose represent the intricate lies or believed truths that were created to match a picture in order to create a story. Martin Baggs agrees that "rosebud" does represent everything that Kane lost, which was replaced with money.
If anyone else has anymore information on the mystery of the "rosebud" please let me know.
The main allure of the film for me however was the mystery surrounding the name "Rosebud" which is shown at the beginning of the film as Lord Northcliffe's dying words, the meaning of these last words is searched and debated throughout the film. I think that the significance of this word is that it demonstrates his mourning for his childhood bliss, and the sled"Rosebud" represents the last regret that passes his lips; that he could not remain stranded in those days. Another indication is the snow dome he drops, which resembles his snow covered childhood home. Another interpretation could be that his method of producing the news which can be best shown in this quote ""You provide the pictures, we'll provide the war". This could indicate that the interweaving layers of a rose represent the intricate lies or believed truths that were created to match a picture in order to create a story. Martin Baggs agrees that "rosebud" does represent everything that Kane lost, which was replaced with money.
If anyone else has anymore information on the mystery of the "rosebud" please let me know.
Wednesday 4 November 2009
'The Real Lord Northcliffe'
I found this book to be a very interesting insight into Lord Northcliffe's life, it was useful because in the lecture we looked at Northcliffe's achievements and the account looked closely at his characteristics, demeanour and habits.
However these recollections I personally found to be overly biased and complementary , it tended to leave out key facts that would have tainted his memory , for example it mentions his death but fails to mention how he died of syphilis. Which could be considered a less than dignified way to die.
Another disappointing aspect of the book is although it goes into great detail about his personality it only touches slightly on his business ventures, for instance it describes his management of 'The Times' and his conversion of 'The Daily Mail' into a women's paper, but it fails to indulge the reader with details on how the deal was secured, how he heard about the deal and his adjustments to the position. I feel this was a general failure of the whole book , however the lecture cured me of the ignorance the book failed to satisfy.
I am now eagerly awaiting the screening of the film Citizen Kane to do an overall comparison as it will be intriguing to see where these two forms agree and differ. If anyone has any contrasting views or even anything to add I would love to hear what you have to say.
However these recollections I personally found to be overly biased and complementary , it tended to leave out key facts that would have tainted his memory , for example it mentions his death but fails to mention how he died of syphilis. Which could be considered a less than dignified way to die.
Another disappointing aspect of the book is although it goes into great detail about his personality it only touches slightly on his business ventures, for instance it describes his management of 'The Times' and his conversion of 'The Daily Mail' into a women's paper, but it fails to indulge the reader with details on how the deal was secured, how he heard about the deal and his adjustments to the position. I feel this was a general failure of the whole book , however the lecture cured me of the ignorance the book failed to satisfy.
I am now eagerly awaiting the screening of the film Citizen Kane to do an overall comparison as it will be intriguing to see where these two forms agree and differ. If anyone has any contrasting views or even anything to add I would love to hear what you have to say.
Wednesday 28 October 2009
Follow up to modernism lecture
Although I was disappointed that we didn't have a screening of James Joyce's Ulysses, I thought the documentary that we watched on Utube about the parts of the brain and its functions was a perfect follow up to the lecture before on Freud. As we looked at the type of physcological problems that the brain itself developed, and then the week after we explored the brain and its functions. It would have been interesting though if the material could have gone a little further, for example we could have looked at examples or cases where these pyscological conditions have caused people to act in extreme ways damaging to themselves or others.
The videos of the self afflicted wounds and people voluntarily being crucified was surprisingly unnerving, however this is not the first time I have seen or heard stuff of this calibre being enacted. At the worst end of the spectrum is the actual practice of sacrifice in India to Kali the Goddess of destruction, which at its worst two hundred years ago a boy would be sacrificed everyday at the temple in Calcutta, and I know this is going off topic slightly but I truly believe that religion is the root of all evil. If u look at the crusades, the genocide in Yugoslavia etc, all of these events are the product of religion.
However I do understand the theory of self mutilation in religion, it helps the sufferer to understand Christ's pain, and grow disciplined from their suffering, however doesn't this clash with the whole idea of self mutilation or acts of impurity against the body being a sin. It seems to me that their are a lot of contradictions within religion.
The videos of the self afflicted wounds and people voluntarily being crucified was surprisingly unnerving, however this is not the first time I have seen or heard stuff of this calibre being enacted. At the worst end of the spectrum is the actual practice of sacrifice in India to Kali the Goddess of destruction, which at its worst two hundred years ago a boy would be sacrificed everyday at the temple in Calcutta, and I know this is going off topic slightly but I truly believe that religion is the root of all evil. If u look at the crusades, the genocide in Yugoslavia etc, all of these events are the product of religion.
However I do understand the theory of self mutilation in religion, it helps the sufferer to understand Christ's pain, and grow disciplined from their suffering, however doesn't this clash with the whole idea of self mutilation or acts of impurity against the body being a sin. It seems to me that their are a lot of contradictions within religion.
Wednesday 21 October 2009
James Joyce's ulysses
Upon reading this text I wondered how it would be linked to a certain theme on our course, but the concept of putting a Ulysses and modernism together is a perfect combination as they complement each other so well. This text's content also displays some of the many modernist themes discussed in the lecture such as physcology.
The style of writing is a perfect example of modernism because at the time it broke the old conventions and transversed into a new style, as it was a new form of writing it didn't conform to usual textual formats such as chapters, and didn't necessarily have a fast pace plot. The content itself can also be considered very modernist as its concern was reflecting everyday life rather than concocting a grand series of events, and some of these events that are described would be considered highly inappropriate to be placed in a work of fiction, therefore its content is modern because it fearlessly and openly discusses taboo issues and breaks the boundaries whilst creating something new at the same time.
Furthermore the lewd references also connect perfectly to Freud, who was mentioned in the lecture as a modernist pioneer, as a lot of his theories connect to sex e.g. the Oedipus complex, penis envy and would have been seen as taboo, it can be inferred that this book connects so well because its lewd content is a perfect example of what Freud was preaching for instance I agree with the point made by Jean Kimball in the article 'James Joyce and the Otto Rank: The Incest Motif in Ulysses' which states that there are incest motifs throughout the book, this clearly connects to the Oedipus complex.
If you would like to read other Ulysses's to compare with James Joyce's Ulysses I recommend reading Virginia Woolf's 'Mrs Dalloway'.
The style of writing is a perfect example of modernism because at the time it broke the old conventions and transversed into a new style, as it was a new form of writing it didn't conform to usual textual formats such as chapters, and didn't necessarily have a fast pace plot. The content itself can also be considered very modernist as its concern was reflecting everyday life rather than concocting a grand series of events, and some of these events that are described would be considered highly inappropriate to be placed in a work of fiction, therefore its content is modern because it fearlessly and openly discusses taboo issues and breaks the boundaries whilst creating something new at the same time.
Furthermore the lewd references also connect perfectly to Freud, who was mentioned in the lecture as a modernist pioneer, as a lot of his theories connect to sex e.g. the Oedipus complex, penis envy and would have been seen as taboo, it can be inferred that this book connects so well because its lewd content is a perfect example of what Freud was preaching for instance I agree with the point made by Jean Kimball in the article 'James Joyce and the Otto Rank: The Incest Motif in Ulysses' which states that there are incest motifs throughout the book, this clearly connects to the Oedipus complex.
If you would like to read other Ulysses's to compare with James Joyce's Ulysses I recommend reading Virginia Woolf's 'Mrs Dalloway'.
Thursday 8 October 2009
David Icke. Prophet or mentally disturbed?
Whilst watching the documentary on David Icke today his persona or people's perception of him seemed to be slightly fractured, it was suggested that he may be an con man/ opportunist, a prophet or insane. However I would also like to suggest that he is someone that is unintentionally breeding anti- Semitic hatred. But before I answer this question I will just recap the theory that we listened to him preaching in the lecture, which is basically that the Illuminati and certain people who are in positions of power and members such as George. W. Bush are reptilian humanoids that control us.
Firstly I would like to look at the ideas that he is a prophet or a con man/opportunist, I would like to explore these two things together because I feel they have the same answer, which is, hope. If David Icke is a con man he preys on the hope of people down on their luck who need someone to blame for the state of the country, or the financial state of their own lives, and he does this by providing an imaginary figure and a powerful elite of people who are wealthy, and who naturally, people will find it easy to resent. It is the same for the prophet figure, he provides and leads people with hope by pointing out a problem and a solution, he also possess the qualities of a prophet for example he is an outcast, mostly disbelieved and unappreciated. However I will discuss this point more later.
As for the claim that he is insane the fact that he preaches some of the ideas he does is evidence enough, as I feel even if you did actually believe some of these things, you would keep quiet to maintain people's image of you.
Finally, is he doing this to breed anti Semitic hate? Well...I personally would not like to believe it, but over the years anti Semitic propaganda has displayed Jews as almost reptilian like as a metaphor I assume to insinuate that they are sly and devious.Even if he is not intentionally indicating at this he has an Neo Nazi anti Semitic following. This I feel particularly worried about as they have obviously heard his theory and interpreted it as an attack against Jews in positions of power, this worries me because it could lead to extremists or militant followers who intend to act out the will of their follower David Icke, which could lead to violent attacks against the Jewish community.
Another question that kept plaguing was why so many people attended his lectures despite the absurdity of his claims. Then it occurred to me that it could be something as simple as the fact that he is giving people someone to blame for all that he sees as injustices in society that offer them contentment, this occurred to me when we were discussing Russia, as I remembered that religion was used to keep the peasants happy "religion is the opium of the masses". Well, his conspiracy theory is working to the same effect, he is keeping people content, by offering answers. However I can't stop asking myself this question: are people really that desperate for answers and someone to lead them?
Firstly I would like to look at the ideas that he is a prophet or a con man/opportunist, I would like to explore these two things together because I feel they have the same answer, which is, hope. If David Icke is a con man he preys on the hope of people down on their luck who need someone to blame for the state of the country, or the financial state of their own lives, and he does this by providing an imaginary figure and a powerful elite of people who are wealthy, and who naturally, people will find it easy to resent. It is the same for the prophet figure, he provides and leads people with hope by pointing out a problem and a solution, he also possess the qualities of a prophet for example he is an outcast, mostly disbelieved and unappreciated. However I will discuss this point more later.
As for the claim that he is insane the fact that he preaches some of the ideas he does is evidence enough, as I feel even if you did actually believe some of these things, you would keep quiet to maintain people's image of you.
Finally, is he doing this to breed anti Semitic hate? Well...I personally would not like to believe it, but over the years anti Semitic propaganda has displayed Jews as almost reptilian like as a metaphor I assume to insinuate that they are sly and devious.Even if he is not intentionally indicating at this he has an Neo Nazi anti Semitic following. This I feel particularly worried about as they have obviously heard his theory and interpreted it as an attack against Jews in positions of power, this worries me because it could lead to extremists or militant followers who intend to act out the will of their follower David Icke, which could lead to violent attacks against the Jewish community.
Another question that kept plaguing was why so many people attended his lectures despite the absurdity of his claims. Then it occurred to me that it could be something as simple as the fact that he is giving people someone to blame for all that he sees as injustices in society that offer them contentment, this occurred to me when we were discussing Russia, as I remembered that religion was used to keep the peasants happy "religion is the opium of the masses". Well, his conspiracy theory is working to the same effect, he is keeping people content, by offering answers. However I can't stop asking myself this question: are people really that desperate for answers and someone to lead them?
Tuesday 6 October 2009
Germinal
New year, same problems. Although a very interesting lecture I found the material very difficult to comprehend in such a fast pace session, which was a problem I had encountered last year.
However I did see a connection between the philosophy and Germinal, which I think isn't particularly subtle. The idea of revolutionary change in Germinal, is represented through a miner's strike which Zola naturally took an interest in because it showed the world had not reached perfection as people were revolting through strikes, its foundation (the workers) were unhappy and were causing society to crumble. Which is what D. Sandy Petrey argues in his article 'The Revolutionary Setting of Germinal' by saying
"Strikes became the primary symbol of socialist revolt. Zola consequently left his study of the commune to La Debacle to incarnate the movement of the proletariat in a strike, a subject whose vast dramatic potential had never before been exploited in a novel".
This I feel connected really well to the Young Hegelians because they preached against Hegel who claimed the world had reached its ultimate perfection, well, surely if people are rebelling against the system that is already in place it cannot be perfect, as a perfect society would please everybody. However this connection may not have been as obvious to others, if not I would be very interested in hearing other impressions. Tell me what you think?
However I did see a connection between the philosophy and Germinal, which I think isn't particularly subtle. The idea of revolutionary change in Germinal, is represented through a miner's strike which Zola naturally took an interest in because it showed the world had not reached perfection as people were revolting through strikes, its foundation (the workers) were unhappy and were causing society to crumble. Which is what D. Sandy Petrey argues in his article 'The Revolutionary Setting of Germinal' by saying
"Strikes became the primary symbol of socialist revolt. Zola consequently left his study of the commune to La Debacle to incarnate the movement of the proletariat in a strike, a subject whose vast dramatic potential had never before been exploited in a novel".
This I feel connected really well to the Young Hegelians because they preached against Hegel who claimed the world had reached its ultimate perfection, well, surely if people are rebelling against the system that is already in place it cannot be perfect, as a perfect society would please everybody. However this connection may not have been as obvious to others, if not I would be very interested in hearing other impressions. Tell me what you think?
Tuesday 19 May 2009
Is it all about money, money, money?
For many years now, I have being saying that when I can vote I do not intend to as politics is completely corrupt; and that the politicians are not really interested in the country's welfare, but merely the welfare of their wallets. Due to the Telegraph's coverage of Mp's spending of the tax payers money I have been proved correct. Now before I begin my criticism I would like to offer praise for the Telegraph, as it was them that started and lead the way for these series of exposes on government spending. It is disgraceful the amount of money spent on idiotic and non essential things, the worst without a doubt being Douglas Hogg's use of government money for work to be conducted on his moat. Is this useful spending of tax payers money? I think not! I also find it ridiculous that these crooked politicians have not been severely disciplined. The question I am asking and one which I believe everyone is questioning is why have they not lost their jobs? I think it is clear that the government need to do something along these lines to regain the public's confidence.
One more question that has also bothered me is, if it hadn't been for Jackie Smith being exposed for wrongly spending tax payers money on adult films, would there have been an investigation into other spending? Is the Jackie Smith scandal to blame?
I was just debating this very subject in an essay a couple of weeks ago, when contemplating, why should we obey the state? I came to the conclusion that we should, however one of the many arguments that divided me slightly was the fact that because the government abuses its power; does it deserve the power and cooperation it has? How can you trust and obey an institution when it does not lead the example?
One more question that has also bothered me is, if it hadn't been for Jackie Smith being exposed for wrongly spending tax payers money on adult films, would there have been an investigation into other spending? Is the Jackie Smith scandal to blame?
I was just debating this very subject in an essay a couple of weeks ago, when contemplating, why should we obey the state? I came to the conclusion that we should, however one of the many arguments that divided me slightly was the fact that because the government abuses its power; does it deserve the power and cooperation it has? How can you trust and obey an institution when it does not lead the example?
Friday 15 May 2009
Monday 4 May 2009
Is ignorance bliss?
Before I start this criticism I should make a confession, which doesn't serve as a defense, but rather my own understanding of how it could happen. As before I was a journalism student I will admit freely, I was unaware of popular news topics and found myself questioning others in conversation when popular news topics were brought up, however once I started this course my interest in news was sparked. But before I found that or thought the news wasn't relevant to me and I was fairly content to be ignorant.
I bring this up as the other day I was discussing an issue I found to be personally worrying, Swine Flu, to an English student who I also share lectures with, and to my horror she had no idea what I was talking about. Now it is important to remember that at the time the crisis level ranging from one to six was at level five and there were fifty three cases, constantly increasing in the UK, and this girl still had no idea. This made me question whether it is better to be ignorant, or knowledgeable? As I am following the reports of this topic and as a hypochondriac worrying myself about it, when my friend is strolling around ignorant of the problem and carefree.
Therefore although it is important to know what is going on in the world, does the media make things worse by emphasizing a problem too much? As u need to consider whether all this knowledge eases your mind, which for me personally it doesn't, or if you are content with simply not knowing, because it preserves your ideal image of the world and your peace of mind before you lay down to rest. Is knowledge a gift or a curse? I say curse.
I bring this up as the other day I was discussing an issue I found to be personally worrying, Swine Flu, to an English student who I also share lectures with, and to my horror she had no idea what I was talking about. Now it is important to remember that at the time the crisis level ranging from one to six was at level five and there were fifty three cases, constantly increasing in the UK, and this girl still had no idea. This made me question whether it is better to be ignorant, or knowledgeable? As I am following the reports of this topic and as a hypochondriac worrying myself about it, when my friend is strolling around ignorant of the problem and carefree.
Therefore although it is important to know what is going on in the world, does the media make things worse by emphasizing a problem too much? As u need to consider whether all this knowledge eases your mind, which for me personally it doesn't, or if you are content with simply not knowing, because it preserves your ideal image of the world and your peace of mind before you lay down to rest. Is knowledge a gift or a curse? I say curse.
Monday 30 March 2009
Council Meeting Observations
My initial thoughts before I attended the council meeting was that it would be formal but not to the same degree as a court room, and that humour and public participation would be discouraged; however I was wrong.
Upon entering the room a couple of minutes late I was smiled upon by a group of councillors, a clerk, administrator and people of other positions who I could not see. They all sat around a conference like table in the centre of the room, their positions or name was shown on a card in front of each person; the head of the table the chancellor I believe was the driving force behind the motions and the topics of discussion, I assumed my position as the observer on the left side of the seating area allocated for the public. At the back of the room was a lone woman making notes on what was said.
The meeting started with a presentation by two other council members from other parishes. The presentation speaker gave his presentation occasionally referring to a screen with pictures of the local area; which his presentation was about. However a particular observation that I did make was that these two fellow councillors sat in the public seating area beforehand and when their partner was giving the presentation, but not at the table with the other councillors.
Points of the meeting were referred to as item followed by digits, then they were debated or described with a proposal being made; which was then seconded by a member causing it to go to a vote either being favoured or voted against. The word extension I believe was uttered a couple of times but I did not fully understand what it meant. My observations were fairly limited on this part as it was so fast pace it was hard to follow at times. Half way through the meeting a break was offered for ten minutes worth of public participation, but because no one had anything to ask the meeting continued. It followed this pattern for the next hour and half, until the members of the public were asked to leave so that they could discuss the last two points.
At the start of this blog I mentioned my misconceptions, so now I will comment on how I was wrong.To begin with jokes were made between the councillors giving the meeting a light hearted atmosphere, also the warmth and welcoming disposition of the councillors soon washed away any feeling of intimidation I had. Overall I found this experience very educational.
Upon entering the room a couple of minutes late I was smiled upon by a group of councillors, a clerk, administrator and people of other positions who I could not see. They all sat around a conference like table in the centre of the room, their positions or name was shown on a card in front of each person; the head of the table the chancellor I believe was the driving force behind the motions and the topics of discussion, I assumed my position as the observer on the left side of the seating area allocated for the public. At the back of the room was a lone woman making notes on what was said.
The meeting started with a presentation by two other council members from other parishes. The presentation speaker gave his presentation occasionally referring to a screen with pictures of the local area; which his presentation was about. However a particular observation that I did make was that these two fellow councillors sat in the public seating area beforehand and when their partner was giving the presentation, but not at the table with the other councillors.
Points of the meeting were referred to as item followed by digits, then they were debated or described with a proposal being made; which was then seconded by a member causing it to go to a vote either being favoured or voted against. The word extension I believe was uttered a couple of times but I did not fully understand what it meant. My observations were fairly limited on this part as it was so fast pace it was hard to follow at times. Half way through the meeting a break was offered for ten minutes worth of public participation, but because no one had anything to ask the meeting continued. It followed this pattern for the next hour and half, until the members of the public were asked to leave so that they could discuss the last two points.
At the start of this blog I mentioned my misconceptions, so now I will comment on how I was wrong.To begin with jokes were made between the councillors giving the meeting a light hearted atmosphere, also the warmth and welcoming disposition of the councillors soon washed away any feeling of intimidation I had. Overall I found this experience very educational.
Friday 27 March 2009
A picture speaks a thousand words.
In a previous blog I commented on a particular article and praised the Daily Mirror for excellent coverage of a story and their selection of a picture to convey the emotion of tragedy, however one of the pictures they used in their tribute to Jade Goody; which was published on monday the 23rd of March, was herrendous. The picture in question showed Jade Goody being carried away in a body bag. I can appreciate that the picture must have been very difficult to get and is possibly a very exclusive picture, but I just can't help but feel how inappropriate it was to show that picture, as it is too morbidly shocking and may be very hurtful to some of the readers having to look upon it. I may be over reacting, so please let me know what you think. Do you feel it was appropriate to use that picture?
I will end on a positive, despite the Daily Mirror's use of this picture I felt overall the tribute they put together was very touching, the wide range of information did justice to the legacy Jade is leaving behind and it gave her memory the full credit it deserved. But most of all the faces of her family and friends shows how much she will be missed.
I was discussing with someone in our lecture the great legacy Jade will leave behind through her very public battle with cervical cancer; however they disagreed by saying it showed a lack of dignity by selling her struggle to the press. Which I feel is a valid point. Please let me know what you think, did Jade do the right thing making her terminal illness so public?
Next week I will blog about the council meeting I will be attending on the 3oth of March.
I will end on a positive, despite the Daily Mirror's use of this picture I felt overall the tribute they put together was very touching, the wide range of information did justice to the legacy Jade is leaving behind and it gave her memory the full credit it deserved. But most of all the faces of her family and friends shows how much she will be missed.
I was discussing with someone in our lecture the great legacy Jade will leave behind through her very public battle with cervical cancer; however they disagreed by saying it showed a lack of dignity by selling her struggle to the press. Which I feel is a valid point. Please let me know what you think, did Jade do the right thing making her terminal illness so public?
Next week I will blog about the council meeting I will be attending on the 3oth of March.
Tuesday 17 March 2009
Nature or Nurture?
Monstrous, tragic and shocking were just some of the words that came to mind when I first read the story of the shootings in Germany executed by loner seventeen year old Tim Kretschmer. However this story is just a chilling reminder of previous school shootings and raises some important questions the first being: do gun laws need to be more strict? And are these school shooters born killers or moulded into murderers by their peers?
To answer the latter question are killers born or made I think that it is important to look at where the killer fitted in the social hierarchy at school, as this will tell us whether they were bullied or loners; which I know is a common stereotype but if they were bullied or victimised it would make sense that there would be a strong motive for targeting members of the school they attended. So here are a few examples of previous cases, the Virginia Tech killer Cho Seung-Hui and Kimveer Gill according to psychologist Robin Kowalski they did fit the typical profile for school killers, for instance they both were rejected in some way whether that was through bullying or other means, both had an obsession with guns and weapons, they were premeditated and methodical. Therefore to some degree it does seem that these killers are created through years of bullying, which raises the question do children need to be taught the repercussions of bullying rather than what it does to the victim? As both of these examples the killers deliberately planned out their revenge.
My final point is do gun laws need to be more strict and are parents reckless with their guns if their children are able to access these weapons? As Kretschmer got the guns he used from his father's collection of eighteen guns. I personally for a long time now have thought that gun laws are too relaxed as it seems anyone can walk into a shop and purchase a gun. I also think that America's whole attitude regarding guns is important, because they seem very gun happy and emphasize the need for guns as a form of protection and to be used on a regular basis...well Britons don't have that attitude and we have had no school shootings, however we do have a severe knife problem. So is it American's attitude that arms the hate fuelled teenagers with the tools they need to carry out their revenge? In conclusion I think it is important to look at the society in which these killers come from as I feel that it is partly responsible.
To answer the latter question are killers born or made I think that it is important to look at where the killer fitted in the social hierarchy at school, as this will tell us whether they were bullied or loners; which I know is a common stereotype but if they were bullied or victimised it would make sense that there would be a strong motive for targeting members of the school they attended. So here are a few examples of previous cases, the Virginia Tech killer Cho Seung-Hui and Kimveer Gill according to psychologist Robin Kowalski they did fit the typical profile for school killers, for instance they both were rejected in some way whether that was through bullying or other means, both had an obsession with guns and weapons, they were premeditated and methodical. Therefore to some degree it does seem that these killers are created through years of bullying, which raises the question do children need to be taught the repercussions of bullying rather than what it does to the victim? As both of these examples the killers deliberately planned out their revenge.
My final point is do gun laws need to be more strict and are parents reckless with their guns if their children are able to access these weapons? As Kretschmer got the guns he used from his father's collection of eighteen guns. I personally for a long time now have thought that gun laws are too relaxed as it seems anyone can walk into a shop and purchase a gun. I also think that America's whole attitude regarding guns is important, because they seem very gun happy and emphasize the need for guns as a form of protection and to be used on a regular basis...well Britons don't have that attitude and we have had no school shootings, however we do have a severe knife problem. So is it American's attitude that arms the hate fuelled teenagers with the tools they need to carry out their revenge? In conclusion I think it is important to look at the society in which these killers come from as I feel that it is partly responsible.
Friday 6 March 2009
A Life time of Guilt
Stories revealing scandals in government or celebrity faux pas I will admit do not intrigue me, however stories of bizarre tragedy do, and this particular story I will blog about left me feeling that it is unfair how high the price of a simple mistake or accident can cost someone so dearly; and that the mistake will leave them wounded for the rest of their lives.
I am of course talking about the tragic story of Leon Holder the baby who was crushed by his thirteen stone dad; who tripped over one of the baby's toys. I cannot begin to imagine the intolerable guilt his father, Sam Barwick must be enduring, but I can't help but feel that it could have been avoided. For instance why was the baby playing on the floor? Does it not seem obvious that the baby was at risk from being trampled on? I know this implies negligence which I am not inferring, but I just don't think a baby should play on the floor. I was also looking at the age of the parents the father, Sam is twenty and the mother, Katie is nineteen, and I have been debating ever since whether the parents age has anything to do with the fact the baby was playing on the floor? Would older parents have foreseen the potential risk. Either way the fateful irony of this tragedy greatly saddened me.
Before I draw this blog to a close I would just like to give praise were its due, I think the picture The Daily Mirror used to accompany this story was genius. The image of a toothless smile from a child who is clearly happy and wearing an 'I love Daddy' bib amplified the tone of tragedy and horror the article was clearly aiming to produce. Well done.
I am of course talking about the tragic story of Leon Holder the baby who was crushed by his thirteen stone dad; who tripped over one of the baby's toys. I cannot begin to imagine the intolerable guilt his father, Sam Barwick must be enduring, but I can't help but feel that it could have been avoided. For instance why was the baby playing on the floor? Does it not seem obvious that the baby was at risk from being trampled on? I know this implies negligence which I am not inferring, but I just don't think a baby should play on the floor. I was also looking at the age of the parents the father, Sam is twenty and the mother, Katie is nineteen, and I have been debating ever since whether the parents age has anything to do with the fact the baby was playing on the floor? Would older parents have foreseen the potential risk. Either way the fateful irony of this tragedy greatly saddened me.
Before I draw this blog to a close I would just like to give praise were its due, I think the picture The Daily Mirror used to accompany this story was genius. The image of a toothless smile from a child who is clearly happy and wearing an 'I love Daddy' bib amplified the tone of tragedy and horror the article was clearly aiming to produce. Well done.
Sunday 1 March 2009
I was left feeling relieved that Tuesday's lecture wasn't another philosophy themed lesson, instead I found the overview of British history interesting enough that it subdued my fatigue; as it filled in gaps of knowledge that my education had left unfilled; the other things mentioned was just a pleasant reminder. Now I know we are supposed to blog about the lecture and start a debate, but I'm not going to do that. I will instead talk about something that I have read and was recommended to write about it in another less than motivating comment left on my blog. However I will say that if you would like to know more about British history I recommend that you look at some of the works of Greek and Roman historians in particular Tacitus's Agricola; which comments on the military invasion of Britain by the Romans and Britain itself and its inhabitants at the time. "The Britons were formerly governed by kings, [54] but at present they are divided in factions and parties among their chiefs; and this want of union for concerting some general plan is the most favorable circumstance to us,in our designs against so powerful a people. It is seldom that two or three communities concur in repelling the common danger; and thus, while they engage singly, they are all subdued". This extract from Tacitus is also very useful because it gives a Roman perspective.
As I said previously I will now talk briefly on a subject which doesn't interest me at all, but a subject which I was recommended to talk about. I was shocked to read that the comedian Billy Connolly stated in an article that he had over a hundred pairs of shoes. I was truly puzzled because it is common for women to have an obsession with either bags or shoes, but a man, is that normal? Is this obsession or vanity? This line of questioning reminded me of a particular topic I have been studying in English regarding feminism and specifically gender. Feminists argue that gender is an illusion and a product of society; which tells us that we should behave a certain way because of our sex, for example girls should like dolls and boys football. Is this prejudice I feel a product of society programmed into me? As I am ashamed to admit I personally feel that if a man has too many shoes that I would perceive him as more feminine than other men. However it may just be to do with vanity, as it is all about what you wear most places. If any guys have a similar obsession please let me know; as it would be great to hear a males perspective.
As I said previously I will now talk briefly on a subject which doesn't interest me at all, but a subject which I was recommended to talk about. I was shocked to read that the comedian Billy Connolly stated in an article that he had over a hundred pairs of shoes. I was truly puzzled because it is common for women to have an obsession with either bags or shoes, but a man, is that normal? Is this obsession or vanity? This line of questioning reminded me of a particular topic I have been studying in English regarding feminism and specifically gender. Feminists argue that gender is an illusion and a product of society; which tells us that we should behave a certain way because of our sex, for example girls should like dolls and boys football. Is this prejudice I feel a product of society programmed into me? As I am ashamed to admit I personally feel that if a man has too many shoes that I would perceive him as more feminine than other men. However it may just be to do with vanity, as it is all about what you wear most places. If any guys have a similar obsession please let me know; as it would be great to hear a males perspective.
Friday 20 February 2009
Empiricism
I must admit that after Tuesday's lecture I was left feeling a little confused, the long winded and over complicated explanations didn't particularly help with my understanding of the subject; so in my hour of doubt I turned to the Internet for confirmation. After researching for just a couple of minutes I was able to understand that empiricism is a theory or idea based on sensory analysis and is scientific, whereas an a-priori is more faith orientated. After gaining a better understanding of the topic, I started looking for examples of quotes or debates on the subject, without much success.
However I did remember that David Icke was mentioned in the lecture and I remember I was intrigued at the bizarre associations his name was linked with, for example his lizard theory, so with curiosity as my motivation I visited his website. Upon reading some of his articles such as his theory that Barrack Obama is using hope and change as a mind control device my interest in him grew further. "Barack Obama is a purveyor of 'hope' because his masters want the people to accept what they are given now in the hope that good times will come". Well... to some degree that is true, don't all politicians get into power by enticing us with the promise of change for the better? However I wouldn't go as far to say that he is using it as a mind control device, that implies his intentions may not be completely noble and that he has complete power over the masses; which isn't true either, he doesn't, not everyone voted for him. Icke also states that he is dangerous and threatens to lead Americans down a dark path; as I am unable to find an empiricist view on the subject I will take that position in the debate. I think its wrong to say that Barrack Obama is going to lead America down a dark road, because he hasn't done it yet, or given any indication that he will, and he has only been in power a short period of time so it seems unfair to judge his time in power already.
I would advise anyone looking for a spokes person for a-priori opinions to look at David Icke's article's as there is quite a selection, and many of them are quite enlightening.
However I did remember that David Icke was mentioned in the lecture and I remember I was intrigued at the bizarre associations his name was linked with, for example his lizard theory, so with curiosity as my motivation I visited his website. Upon reading some of his articles such as his theory that Barrack Obama is using hope and change as a mind control device my interest in him grew further. "Barack Obama is a purveyor of 'hope' because his masters want the people to accept what they are given now in the hope that good times will come". Well... to some degree that is true, don't all politicians get into power by enticing us with the promise of change for the better? However I wouldn't go as far to say that he is using it as a mind control device, that implies his intentions may not be completely noble and that he has complete power over the masses; which isn't true either, he doesn't, not everyone voted for him. Icke also states that he is dangerous and threatens to lead Americans down a dark path; as I am unable to find an empiricist view on the subject I will take that position in the debate. I think its wrong to say that Barrack Obama is going to lead America down a dark road, because he hasn't done it yet, or given any indication that he will, and he has only been in power a short period of time so it seems unfair to judge his time in power already.
I would advise anyone looking for a spokes person for a-priori opinions to look at David Icke's article's as there is quite a selection, and many of them are quite enlightening.
Friday 13 February 2009
After reading about the death of yet another toddler (Sanam Navsarka) at the hands of an abusive parent, I feel disgusted that it has taken a well documented case like baby P to spark public interest in child abuse. As in my opinion more cases have emerged as being unnoticed since baby P's death. It has also made me question how much violence needs to be inflicted upon a child before people take notice? Was it the severity of baby P's injuries that made people finally take more of an interest?
Another potential question that has bothered me since reading about Sanam is; does the failure to prevent these abuse cases reveal a flaw in the system? As surely if a lot of children are not being helped, it must be due to the incompetence of care workers, as it states in 'The Sun' that Sanam's injuries were unnoticed by care worker's. "Sanam was seen by care workers three times in the month before she died. They met the couple to discuss another relative who was in care- but failed to spot Sanam's injuries".
Another potential question that has bothered me since reading about Sanam is; does the failure to prevent these abuse cases reveal a flaw in the system? As surely if a lot of children are not being helped, it must be due to the incompetence of care workers, as it states in 'The Sun' that Sanam's injuries were unnoticed by care worker's. "Sanam was seen by care workers three times in the month before she died. They met the couple to discuss another relative who was in care- but failed to spot Sanam's injuries".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)