and what d'ya know?
it's that time of year again.
for a brief moment I was determined to not enjoy it as well, I don't have many things to enjoy what with being old, lonely and bogged down with too much work to do.... Even so, I've not been able to completely shut out what can only be called the "Christmas Cheer" and I have already caught myself on several occasions humming or singing christmas songs (not caroles). I guess I am partly to blame because I have also been hunting around for presents as for some odd reason, I've felt like being more generous than my usual self. Alas, as per tradition, I have only got one present bought and wrapped (that thing for lou doesn't count). Looks like Friday is shopping day then....
Lovely...
Now for some news.
As you might've seen on todays' news reports, there is another risk of hospitals falling foul of yet another strain of virus that could potentially result in many deaths. What's the problem? The hospitals STILL aren't clean enough. More to the point, they're STILL not much different to how they were before/during the MRSA outbreak. Just what does that say about the state of the health service? Granted that i know that we have a relatively good service condindering how much strain it is under but how long is it going to be before it clicks in who-ever's in charge's head that something serious needs to be done? I'm sure I'm not the only one who sees a big problem with how the current government is running things but how long are people going to go on blindly accepting things like this happening? Haven't they spotted the problem yet? Out-sourcing these sorts of operations (hospital cleaning, supported housing, traffic/parking enforcement) which by their nature turns it into something based on profit, in turn leads to a massive drop in the actual quality of service. I am sure that I'm not the only one to see the laxing of the parking meter feeding situation as a good step in the right direction but the problem still stands that the parking attendents are, let's just say, overzealous.
The other day I was browsing in Waterstones and remembering a conversaton I had over dinner about the great man himself, Winston Churchill. Why can't we have a party leader like this anymore? A proper stubborn old man who will blindly ram his way into any situation and gladly await the consequences after it's over. Y'know, someone with balls.
There is always talk of "our Tony" wanting a more American style government but then where's the semi-frequent public addresses? You can find fault with Churchill, mainly because he is/was so clearly a man of a different era but one thing you can't fault is his public address and his skill with the english language. In an era of announcements being carefull drafted and surgically worded to avoid any actual content, it is refeshing to browse through the collection of Chirchill's public speeches and knowing that every word was chosen by him in his office by himself. Yes, in today's world, they might be a bit too personal and too emotive to be politically correct but heck, sometimes you got to say screw you to PC and just tell people how it is because otherwise they just won't understand.
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Monday, December 05, 2005
rise of the censors...?
as you might've heard, today, a 21 year old eminem fan has pleaded guilty to the murder of a 26 year old student. First of all, you will have noticed that I included (part) of the newspapers favourite technique of giving the subjects title but please bear with me, I did that for a reason.
The title of this post is about censorship, something that I think deserves more discussion than it is usually given. The first point here is that the victim was a student; someone with masive potential. The second more important point is that in every single report that this article has been addressed, the fact that the guilty party was an eminem fan has been mentioned. In one instance, the fact that Eminem's original intention for the track we all know and love called "Stan" was to be a satirical, at times mocking sneer at "fans" who take things such as music, films, art, poetry (football?) too seriously and do not understand the distinction between those worlds and reality. However, in most other cases, the only fact that mentioned, was the eminem connection.
I guess the real point here is that of the obsessive; more specifically, those who are so obsessed with something that it over-rides all other aspects of their perception of the real world (not a matrix quote).
It is all too easy to blame Eminem for this obsessive fan's actions and that is the big problem. I have a fear that for the next few days, we are going to have countless number of day time television shows discussing this very issue and all too many people failing to see that
i) the real issue here is that the murder was commited by an individual who was naturally aggressive, violent, drinks, takes drugs and with known personality disorder.
ii) censorship will not solve this.
My question is why wasn't someone known to be like that under more supervision (incidentally, I am currently working on a project for a Support House for such individuals so this is a little close to what I am working with). Some of you might know that the bloke that lives across the road from me has a psychological problem that requires medical control. For the most part, he is a very nice bloke who always asks if we need help with our garden. Once in a while though, he forgets to take his medication and he starts to get rowdy. We all know this, espcially his immediate neighbours who all have the number to his carers. Last christmas, about a week before the day, he started to almost camp out in his front yard sitting in a wooden chair like you see them big guys do in the films of the American Suburban Ghetto 'hoods. A few days after this started, his carers were here and we didn't see him until after the new year.
There are always going to be people like this who need a certain level of support/control. Putting a ban on things that might serve as a catalyst for these people's perverted perceptions does nothing. Every time this sort of crime is commited under these sort of circumstances, we often hear the usual: "it's the music's fault", "it's the film's fault" and the usual call for censorship often follows blindly.
Censorhips does nothing because it isn't the thing being censored that isn't fault (lest we forget "helter skelter" and "catcher in the rye"). I think censorship is wrong on all sorts of levels, most important of which is that it assumes that we, the general public are stupid. For the most part, I'd probably agree with this in that the general public, as a mass/group are stupid as the recent (10 years?) of watching footall take over from things such as polictical/social issues as the popular topic of discussions alludes to. However, it is also true that the (average) individual is smarter than he/she has ever been (at least I hope so). We know what is right/wrong. We know what is real/virtual. We know what we should do and what we shouldn't do. We know that films are fantasies and that songs are just words put to music. If we see something in a film, we don't all rush out to imitate it. Granted that to a degree some of us do (.....long black leather jackets anyone...?) but not many of us go the whole hog and stick a big metal spike at the base of our brain-stems. Why? Because we're not stupid.
I also guess that the other point of this is that people seem to be less inclined to actually take responsiblity for things, ergo the earlier point about the care, or lack of, for that individual. Rowdy kids? Must be the films/music. Heaven forbid that it's actually the parents' fault for not teqching their kids some level of respect and control. Several years back, Maryln Manson was blamed for turning middle america into a bunch of satan worshippers. In several interviews, he made the wonderful point that him, being at that time quite prominant in the media for his particular style of music and music videos, he was a natural target. It is always easier to blame someone who is almost not of our reality such as pop-stars, film stars, politicians because they appear to exist on a different world to ours. We can blame them because then it isn't just NOT our fault but it is also something that is way beyond our control. This is where I say bullshit to all that. Take responsibilty for the things that happen around you because everything you do influences and affects the things around you.
On the filp side, this also follows nicely into that thing we touched upon in Gary's blog about hero worship and idolising people falsely. For some reason, the notion of celebrity has gotten out of hand to the point that it is almost creating a new sort of class division. It's no longer about being "P.O.S.H" but about being famous or not.
It also seems to follow nicely into the subject of the mentality of consumerism which was also something that Gary aluded to (very poorly and almost misrepresenting the subject).
Monkey see Monkey do.
(see, i knew it wasn't that much of a tangent.....)
I could go on but I don't want to have pages and pages of me rambling on about these; at least not yet but I'd probably continue this another day.....
The title of this post is about censorship, something that I think deserves more discussion than it is usually given. The first point here is that the victim was a student; someone with masive potential. The second more important point is that in every single report that this article has been addressed, the fact that the guilty party was an eminem fan has been mentioned. In one instance, the fact that Eminem's original intention for the track we all know and love called "Stan" was to be a satirical, at times mocking sneer at "fans" who take things such as music, films, art, poetry (football?) too seriously and do not understand the distinction between those worlds and reality. However, in most other cases, the only fact that mentioned, was the eminem connection.
I guess the real point here is that of the obsessive; more specifically, those who are so obsessed with something that it over-rides all other aspects of their perception of the real world (not a matrix quote).
It is all too easy to blame Eminem for this obsessive fan's actions and that is the big problem. I have a fear that for the next few days, we are going to have countless number of day time television shows discussing this very issue and all too many people failing to see that
i) the real issue here is that the murder was commited by an individual who was naturally aggressive, violent, drinks, takes drugs and with known personality disorder.
ii) censorship will not solve this.
My question is why wasn't someone known to be like that under more supervision (incidentally, I am currently working on a project for a Support House for such individuals so this is a little close to what I am working with). Some of you might know that the bloke that lives across the road from me has a psychological problem that requires medical control. For the most part, he is a very nice bloke who always asks if we need help with our garden. Once in a while though, he forgets to take his medication and he starts to get rowdy. We all know this, espcially his immediate neighbours who all have the number to his carers. Last christmas, about a week before the day, he started to almost camp out in his front yard sitting in a wooden chair like you see them big guys do in the films of the American Suburban Ghetto 'hoods. A few days after this started, his carers were here and we didn't see him until after the new year.
There are always going to be people like this who need a certain level of support/control. Putting a ban on things that might serve as a catalyst for these people's perverted perceptions does nothing. Every time this sort of crime is commited under these sort of circumstances, we often hear the usual: "it's the music's fault", "it's the film's fault" and the usual call for censorship often follows blindly.
Censorhips does nothing because it isn't the thing being censored that isn't fault (lest we forget "helter skelter" and "catcher in the rye"). I think censorship is wrong on all sorts of levels, most important of which is that it assumes that we, the general public are stupid. For the most part, I'd probably agree with this in that the general public, as a mass/group are stupid as the recent (10 years?) of watching footall take over from things such as polictical/social issues as the popular topic of discussions alludes to. However, it is also true that the (average) individual is smarter than he/she has ever been (at least I hope so). We know what is right/wrong. We know what is real/virtual. We know what we should do and what we shouldn't do. We know that films are fantasies and that songs are just words put to music. If we see something in a film, we don't all rush out to imitate it. Granted that to a degree some of us do (.....long black leather jackets anyone...?) but not many of us go the whole hog and stick a big metal spike at the base of our brain-stems. Why? Because we're not stupid.
I also guess that the other point of this is that people seem to be less inclined to actually take responsiblity for things, ergo the earlier point about the care, or lack of, for that individual. Rowdy kids? Must be the films/music. Heaven forbid that it's actually the parents' fault for not teqching their kids some level of respect and control. Several years back, Maryln Manson was blamed for turning middle america into a bunch of satan worshippers. In several interviews, he made the wonderful point that him, being at that time quite prominant in the media for his particular style of music and music videos, he was a natural target. It is always easier to blame someone who is almost not of our reality such as pop-stars, film stars, politicians because they appear to exist on a different world to ours. We can blame them because then it isn't just NOT our fault but it is also something that is way beyond our control. This is where I say bullshit to all that. Take responsibilty for the things that happen around you because everything you do influences and affects the things around you.
On the filp side, this also follows nicely into that thing we touched upon in Gary's blog about hero worship and idolising people falsely. For some reason, the notion of celebrity has gotten out of hand to the point that it is almost creating a new sort of class division. It's no longer about being "P.O.S.H" but about being famous or not.
It also seems to follow nicely into the subject of the mentality of consumerism which was also something that Gary aluded to (very poorly and almost misrepresenting the subject).
Monkey see Monkey do.
(see, i knew it wasn't that much of a tangent.....)
I could go on but I don't want to have pages and pages of me rambling on about these; at least not yet but I'd probably continue this another day.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
