curve
curve

Contents

Home

Weblog Archive

My CV

Contact me

Essays

Tagwall

Links

curve
curve
curve
curve

Links

My us and them entry

best blond joke ever

Lyn's site

Lynrock

curve
curve
curve
curve
Valid CSS! Valid XHTML 1.1! rss 2.0 feed atom 0.3 feed
curve
curve
A party to go to

I have a party to go to today: It's charlie's sister's birthday, and Charlotte invited Lyn and myself to the celebration. Lyn is busy, so I'll be going on my own. The thing is, it's in a part of the city I've never been to before, so I'm a bit nervous about getting there. All I know about Peckham is it was where the Trotters lived. The TFL website says the journey isn't very complicated, but I'm a bit nervous about getting lost. I suppose it's all part of urban life; part of living in a huge metropolis where there is always somewhere new to explore. I should relish it. I'll let you all know how the party goes tomorrow - assuming I get there, that is.

Osbourne worked with murdoch to cut the beeb

My anger at the Tory government suddenly got even deeper. I just came across this Huffington post article revealing that George Osbourne was in talks with slimeball in chief Rupert Murdoch before he announced cuts to the BBC. If true using one's position in government to favour on company over another is clearly corruption, and Osbourne should lose his job for it. I know the beeb isn't perfect, but if you ask me, it's one of the best broadcasters on earth. It's certainly better than the commercial alternative. The tories wanted it cut because it does not fit in with their greed-based worldview; Murdoch wanted it cut because it supplied an alternative to his propaganda. It shouldn't be surprising that the two slimeballs got together to wreck a great organisation. Like the NHS, the BBC supplies a brilliant service for all irrespective of one's ability to pay, and that's something greedy, selfish gits like Osbourne and Murdoch cannot abide.


[Edited Yesterday at 13:01:30 - added a bit]

Multiverse question

Yesterday afternoon Lyn and I watched this quite interesting documentary about Multiverse Theory. I must say it appealed to me. I hadn't heard much about it before, but to me, the idea of universes outside of our own seems to be quite logical. As the program itself admits, the theory isn't without it's detractors, but it is gaining traction. However, it left me with a small question I'd just like to pose on here: if there are billions more universes outside our own, would that not explain why the universe is expanding? Presumably each universe has gravity, so they would draw other universes towards each other. Would that not solve the problem of expansion currently bugging cosmologists, or am I missing something? Answers i comments please,

Mind you, if multverse theory is correct, an extra verse will have to be added to this song.

bigotry only makes thing worse.

Everyone will be quite aware of what is going on down in dover and the human tragedy unfolding there. Thousands of people desparate to get to the UK are risking their lives, trying to get on to trains to come through the channel tunnel. Of course, we, as a modern, tolerant nation should be helping such people. What pisses me off is when the bbc give twits like Nigel farage airtime to speak on the subject. He was just on the Victoria Derbyshire show, and as usual had me shouting at the tv: blaming everyone else for this 'problem', trying to come across as reasonable while any intelligent person could detect the undercurrent of xenophobia in what he was saying. These people need our help, but our tv screens are polluted by bigots like farage, lying his head off about his car being surrounded by immigrants in calais, and trying to poke fun at 'the human rights brigade' - presumably people capable of thought. People like Farage are the problem, not migrants; I'm appalled that the bbc called on him to talk on this issue - such bigotry only makes thing worse.

Boston chooses to remain normal

I'm still quite interested in olympic news. It seems to me that being chosen to host the olympics is the greatest accolade a city can get, and acts as a status symbol for a city and a country. I also take an interest in travel, different places etc. as well as international relations. That's why I've been following news of the olympic bidding process, and last night I was surprised to read that the USOC has pulled the plug on Boston's bid for the 2024 olympics. Of course, when you look into it that entire bid was mired from the off: it never had public support above 50%, and there was all sorts of trouble about the use of public money. The campaign group, 'No Boston Olympics', is reportedly celebrating, but that strikes me as odd: yes public money can now be used on other things, but why celebrate your city remaining normal. Hosting the olympics marks a city's entry onto the world stage - great cites, world cities, host the games. Gaining the worlds attention means you are noticed, and you join the ranks of Paris, London, Beijing and so on. World centres of art and culture: Places where films are made and set, where songs are written and where epic ceremonies are performed. If you have any sense of pride in your city, you would be eager for it to host such an event. (Of course, I only came to this view after 2012). Of course, a city can be a world city without hosting the games, New York being a good example; yet surely being chosen to host the worlds biggest sporting and cultural event marks a city as special. For Boston to withdraw, then, means it has chosen to remain normal - just a normal, unremarkable city. That's why there's a tone of regret in this Boston Globe article. Yes bostonians save their money, but the city Boston could have become had it hosted the games will never be, and part of me can't help but brand them 'losers'.

Now the USOC will likely put forward a bid for Los Angeles. LA is already a great World city; it's residents certainly have the cajones to host the games. Mind you, all this is moot anyway as I'm pretty sure the IOC will choose Paris to host the 2024 games. After the upset of 2005, and given that 2024 will mark the centenary of the last Paris olympics, it seems to me that the IOC has little choice but to go with the french capital. I suspect the americans know this, and therefore put in a more-or-less token bid from Boston. The interesting thing is, if they now go with LA, could they be setting themselves up for another disappointment of the magnitude of the rejection of New York or Chicago? On the other hand, given that LA could indeed be an enticing prospect for the IOC, might the competition now be closer than it would have been? Could we now be on track for another upset a la 2005? Knowing the pride americans place in their cities, not to mention the pride the French place in their capital, I find the dynamics of this process quite fascinating.


[Edited 28/07/2015 at 11:53:36 - added a bit]
[Edited 28/07/2015 at 13:55:52 - added yet more]
[Edited 29/07/2015 at 13:15:33 - added yet more]