I have just found out that Captain Paul Watson has been arrested, on what charges has yet to be made clear, but it seems that the German government plans to extradite him to Costa Rica.
This seems to be in response to the Sea Shepherd uncovering an illegal shark finning operation. The word here is 'illegal'. How can an 'illegal', that is to say 'against the law', operation use international law to shut down the people who uncovered the acts that where against the law? Surely anybody can see that to jail a man who is fighting against the illegal fishing practises of companies and cabals around the world is to support the illegal practises. And if the governments and legal systems of the world are supporting illegal practises then they are supporting that which is totally opposite to everything that they are supposed - and are voted in for - to embody. If this is the case then the law is a mockery and government a sham.
Wednesday, 16 May 2012
Monday, 7 May 2012
A Different Stage
Went to see 'Holmes and the Ripper' last Friday at the Assembly House, Norwich. An extremely good play that puts forward some all too possible theories as to the Ripper's identity. Although the subject matter is serious there is enough humour to stop it becoming too depressing, including the police man who arrests Watson by mistake.
However, the most surprising facet of the play was the placement of the stage. It was in the middle of the room with the audience all the way around it. This meant that no matter which way the actors where facing they always had their back towards at least part of the audience. Despite this, in many ways, the play was more intimate than many plays I have seen before, probably because there was no curtains to close between scenes. The use of lighting was extremely well down, however, to give the back stage crew a chance to more set pieces.
I had the chance to speak to a member of cast afterwards, who told me that it was the most liberating stage they had ever worked on, due to the fact that they couldn't help but have their back to the audience. This meant that they did not have to worry about turning towards the audience to say their lines and make the action seem natural, leading to movement more akin to that seen in real life. Probably another reason why the action seemed so much more intense than on a more traditional stage.
However, the most surprising facet of the play was the placement of the stage. It was in the middle of the room with the audience all the way around it. This meant that no matter which way the actors where facing they always had their back towards at least part of the audience. Despite this, in many ways, the play was more intimate than many plays I have seen before, probably because there was no curtains to close between scenes. The use of lighting was extremely well down, however, to give the back stage crew a chance to more set pieces.
I had the chance to speak to a member of cast afterwards, who told me that it was the most liberating stage they had ever worked on, due to the fact that they couldn't help but have their back to the audience. This meant that they did not have to worry about turning towards the audience to say their lines and make the action seem natural, leading to movement more akin to that seen in real life. Probably another reason why the action seemed so much more intense than on a more traditional stage.
Saturday, 28 April 2012
Superheroes
Just been to see the 'Avengers Assemble' film and thoroughly enjoyed it. However, it did make me think. Why are people addicted to stories of superheroes? Because it is not a new phenomena. The legends of Greece and Rome are littered with demigods that fight the hideous monsters. The Hindu sagas have the same thing. There are even oriental examples with the Peach Boy of Chinese legend and Tengu (the demon that, having been defeated by the hero, swears utter and undying loyalty to him) in Japanese.
I think it is because of a couple of things. One, we humans want role models, beings who are far above us in physical power, thus giving us something to admire and aspire to. We then want these beings to look at us small humans and see us as something worthy of being protected and guarded against the monsters out there, possibly because we want to know that no matter how badly we foul up, someone, somewhere is going to care about us. Lastly, it is because we want stories where the good guys are going to win at the final curtain call and where the bad guys gonna get what's coming to them. If these stories involve gods and demons and odds that seem impossible for the hero to overcome then all the better because that's even more existing and awesome! Also, it is possibly because we want to believe that no matter how bad our life gets, someone else, somewhere has already faced worse and defeated it.
Superheroes also carry a message, beside the obvious one of good guys and bad guys. Superheroes have helped in the past to change popular ways of thinking. The example that springs to mind is Captain America. The first Marvel comic to feature him fighting the Nazis was published, as far as I know, during the Second World War because the writers of the Marvel Comics believe that America's stand of neutrality in the early stages of the war was not a morally acceptable decision. Because of the comics popularity it helped change the public perception of the war. Not bad for 'just' a comic book.
I think it is because of a couple of things. One, we humans want role models, beings who are far above us in physical power, thus giving us something to admire and aspire to. We then want these beings to look at us small humans and see us as something worthy of being protected and guarded against the monsters out there, possibly because we want to know that no matter how badly we foul up, someone, somewhere is going to care about us. Lastly, it is because we want stories where the good guys are going to win at the final curtain call and where the bad guys gonna get what's coming to them. If these stories involve gods and demons and odds that seem impossible for the hero to overcome then all the better because that's even more existing and awesome! Also, it is possibly because we want to believe that no matter how bad our life gets, someone else, somewhere has already faced worse and defeated it.
Superheroes also carry a message, beside the obvious one of good guys and bad guys. Superheroes have helped in the past to change popular ways of thinking. The example that springs to mind is Captain America. The first Marvel comic to feature him fighting the Nazis was published, as far as I know, during the Second World War because the writers of the Marvel Comics believe that America's stand of neutrality in the early stages of the war was not a morally acceptable decision. Because of the comics popularity it helped change the public perception of the war. Not bad for 'just' a comic book.
Friday, 13 April 2012
Cirque de Ciel
Just been to see Cirque du Ciel's Shanghi. AWESOME!
In fact awesome does not cover it. If you have a liking for stunning acrobatics, mind boggling tricks and death defying stunts, then this group is well worth a watch. As far as I could see there were no safety lines and they only used crash mats for the rope dance and the monkey poles. I'm not sure about the evening performances but the matinees had children doing some of the stunts, including throwing themselves of the top of the monkey poles and trusting the adults to catch them. The level of trust between every member of the team was awe inspiring.
What I particularly liked about it was that there was an equal division of the performances between men and women, with some men having their own acrobat come ballet routines and some of the women having a chance to play the drums in one of the big drumming numbers.
I have to admit that the hat juggling number was a favourite of mine. How do you have a hat on your head and one in each hand and make them rotate positions without either speeding up the passes as you go or having a third arm?
Grant still have to say that the hoop routine and the monkey poles were the best of the show.
Definitely one to watch out for!
In fact awesome does not cover it. If you have a liking for stunning acrobatics, mind boggling tricks and death defying stunts, then this group is well worth a watch. As far as I could see there were no safety lines and they only used crash mats for the rope dance and the monkey poles. I'm not sure about the evening performances but the matinees had children doing some of the stunts, including throwing themselves of the top of the monkey poles and trusting the adults to catch them. The level of trust between every member of the team was awe inspiring.
What I particularly liked about it was that there was an equal division of the performances between men and women, with some men having their own acrobat come ballet routines and some of the women having a chance to play the drums in one of the big drumming numbers.
I have to admit that the hat juggling number was a favourite of mine. How do you have a hat on your head and one in each hand and make them rotate positions without either speeding up the passes as you go or having a third arm?
Grant still have to say that the hoop routine and the monkey poles were the best of the show.
Definitely one to watch out for!
Tuesday, 27 March 2012
Nppf
Just read about the National Planning Policy Framework.
Is any one really taken in by their babble about development only bringing about the lost of habitat only if "the need for, and the benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss"?
Who decides if the "needs for" and the "benefits of" the development "clearly outweigh the loss"? The local people who don't want more housing? Who have said as much in their meetings and petitions? Who don't want more people moving into the area until there is work enough for the people already there? Or the developers who have the bank balance to buy the solicitors and the opinion of the government? Who have the money to keep putting forward application after application until the local people have not the money or the will to fight it any more?
I'm not a betting woman but I know who I'd put my money on.
And while habitats can be bought and sold for the money gained when the houses are built, the woodland and farm land of England will continue to disappear. After all, if all else fails they can always slap a compulsory purchase order on the land like they did to the farm that used to be were Thorpe Marriott now stands.
However, all is not lost.
If you feel like standing up and telling the Government and its money bloated cronies were to sling their collective hooks, then the Woodland Trust does charge a large amount of money for membership. And the money you give them will go to buy the woodlands up before the developers can get to them. What is more, once the land is owned by the charity then compulsory purchase orders cannot stick.
Lets show the government the meaning of the words "The voice of the people is the voice of God!"
Is any one really taken in by their babble about development only bringing about the lost of habitat only if "the need for, and the benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss"?
Who decides if the "needs for" and the "benefits of" the development "clearly outweigh the loss"? The local people who don't want more housing? Who have said as much in their meetings and petitions? Who don't want more people moving into the area until there is work enough for the people already there? Or the developers who have the bank balance to buy the solicitors and the opinion of the government? Who have the money to keep putting forward application after application until the local people have not the money or the will to fight it any more?
I'm not a betting woman but I know who I'd put my money on.
And while habitats can be bought and sold for the money gained when the houses are built, the woodland and farm land of England will continue to disappear. After all, if all else fails they can always slap a compulsory purchase order on the land like they did to the farm that used to be were Thorpe Marriott now stands.
However, all is not lost.
If you feel like standing up and telling the Government and its money bloated cronies were to sling their collective hooks, then the Woodland Trust does charge a large amount of money for membership. And the money you give them will go to buy the woodlands up before the developers can get to them. What is more, once the land is owned by the charity then compulsory purchase orders cannot stick.
Lets show the government the meaning of the words "The voice of the people is the voice of God!"
Saturday, 17 March 2012
Faith
It has been said that a belief in an all-powerful deity is childish, unscientific and in some cases, out right harmful.
I beg to differ.
First of all I must point out the differences between faith, which is a belief in a something beyond our mortal understanding and religion, which is the belief of some humans that they can make other people do as they say, using a fear of Divine retribution as their beating stick.
I have, I hope, a fair amount of faith. I also have, I hope, absolutely no truck with religion.
To me, faith encourages kindness and compassion. The act of going to a place of faith is an act that draws the community together. When that happens friendships and concerns are shared, people become more inclined to help their neighbours and people are encouraged to learn the art of conversation with those they don't know. In short, the best part of communal worship is just that - the community.
If one is encouraged to take this if view of faith then it becomes a way of breaking down barriers and encouraging co-operation. Makes me wonder what would happen if our national leaders were made to express their professed faiths together.
And finally - if there is not a God, those of us who believe in him have lost nothing. However, if there is a God...
I beg to differ.
First of all I must point out the differences between faith, which is a belief in a something beyond our mortal understanding and religion, which is the belief of some humans that they can make other people do as they say, using a fear of Divine retribution as their beating stick.
I have, I hope, a fair amount of faith. I also have, I hope, absolutely no truck with religion.
To me, faith encourages kindness and compassion. The act of going to a place of faith is an act that draws the community together. When that happens friendships and concerns are shared, people become more inclined to help their neighbours and people are encouraged to learn the art of conversation with those they don't know. In short, the best part of communal worship is just that - the community.
If one is encouraged to take this if view of faith then it becomes a way of breaking down barriers and encouraging co-operation. Makes me wonder what would happen if our national leaders were made to express their professed faiths together.
And finally - if there is not a God, those of us who believe in him have lost nothing. However, if there is a God...
Saturday, 10 March 2012
Successes
Having just received some very good news, it puts my in mind that many writers complain about the rejection letters, so I thought I'd have a review of my past submissions.
So far I have submitted forty five pieces of my work. Of them I have only had five successes. Of the other forty I have only received two rejection letters, both within the last two months. That means thirty eight submissions without a please, a thank you or a whistle down an exhaust pipe.
Therefore, I say to the people receiving rejection letters - please spare a thought for those of us who are wallowing in the realm of ignore-dom. If you have been flinging your work into the ether for so long without a reply, that you are on the verge of giving up all together, a rejection letter is a good thing. It means that you are moving away from the place were the adjudicator/agent/publisher takes one look at your work and throws it out without a word.
If you take this point of view, a rejection letter is only one step away from being successful.
So far I have submitted forty five pieces of my work. Of them I have only had five successes. Of the other forty I have only received two rejection letters, both within the last two months. That means thirty eight submissions without a please, a thank you or a whistle down an exhaust pipe.
Therefore, I say to the people receiving rejection letters - please spare a thought for those of us who are wallowing in the realm of ignore-dom. If you have been flinging your work into the ether for so long without a reply, that you are on the verge of giving up all together, a rejection letter is a good thing. It means that you are moving away from the place were the adjudicator/agent/publisher takes one look at your work and throws it out without a word.
If you take this point of view, a rejection letter is only one step away from being successful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)