I don't have quite the level of energy required to detail all my thoughts on this matter, but in the wake of the Aurora killings, I have heard the three following 'arguments' from, I believe, Republican supporters of not imposing greater gun control in the US:
"Guns are less lethal than bombs"
Yes, this was one of them. The quote I read was roughly "hey, this guy apparently knew explosives, so be thankful he had access to guns, or it could have been much worse."
"Gun control caused more deaths in the movie theater"
Again, this is an actual argument made by an (ex-) Republican politician. His argument being that, apparently, there's a 'no guns' policy in American movie theaters, so the victims were un-armed when they were attacked. Had they only had their fire-arms with them, they could have returned fire, thus disabling the miscreant before there was too much loss of life.
"The 9/11 terrorists didn't use guns to kill, and they killed thousands"
Basically, there were many more victims of the 9/11 attacks than at Aurora, and those killers did not use guns, they used planes, so removing access to guns wouldn't have stopped the largest single terrorist act against the US.
-------------
I don't intend to critique these arguments, as I don't believe that is necessary. There are no words I could use to adequately express their fallacy; and any I gave would not dissuade those who hold such opinions from their views, as they evidently possess a form of logic completely alien to my own.
I just felt like recording them here, for the sheer wonder they inspired in me.
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Film Review - "Never Let Me Go"
I don't often (okay, never ... well, let's leave aside those huge lists of films I've posted before, yes? Deal) do film reviews in my blog, but with IMDB, LoveFilm, Amazon, ... to choose from, why not go for a little personal reviewing, eh? There will be slight spoilers...
So without further prevarication, here's my review of the 2010 film 'Never Let Me Go', starring Keira Knightly (both 'k's are pronounced of course), Carey Mulligan, and soon-to-be friendly-neighborhood (sic) Andrew Garfield.
Mostly this is a review of reviews - namely the IMDB ones, simply because a lot of them have clearly missed the point. This is an amazing film; beautifully and skilfully acted, well-written, and superbly photographed. The cast (both young, and slightly older) are universally excellent, fitting their performances into a stilted, slightly other-wordly framework, without ever falling into sentimental schmaltz.
For those of you who don't know Ishiguro's story, this is a film set in 'another England' one where human transplants have become the order of the day; a means to the end of elongating human life beyond it's current boundaries, with a devious, amoral scheme to ensure there are always organs available to harvest. The majority of criticism I have read centres around the central premise, and subsequent action (or inaction) of the main protagonists - "why didn't they run?" "couldn't they have escaped?" and so on. But to concentrate solely on this aspect of the film completely misses what the story is about. To draw a parallel, consider Speilberg's remake of 'War of the Worlds'. Those familiar with the original story and film know this is a fight between humanity and an invading alien force. Speilberg could simply have re-worked that theme into his film, but rather than do that, he took it as read that these events, the action, was unfolding as we all expected it to, and he chose instead to focus on the perspective as seen from an ordinary family. So rather than the epic battles between terrestrial and extraterrestrial forces, these are only hinted at, shown off-screen, their consequences felt but not observed. Instead we see the impact these moments have through the lens of a family unit; shattered then re-formed. We see the little person in the big picture. It becomes real and personal for us. The same story, from a different angle. A proper 're-imagining'.
Similarly 'Never Let Me Go' could have been a different film. There could have been scientific breakthroughs shown; a sea change in attitudes towards organ transplants and donors. Perhaps early experiments in embryo growth or cloning; scenes of failures. An admittance that a 'real' upbringing was required in order to succeed. Shots of moral protestations; marches, a political and ethical battle. The eventual creation of 'farm units'; creation of a control and monitoring mechanism, and so on and so on. We could have had that movie instead. The story of the mechanics of how the situation arose. But we didn't. Instead, just like Speilberg had done, we got the story from the personal perspective of a number of individuals caught up within the events. So, we didn't get to see all of the aspects that were there. Questions were left unanswered (why did they want to meet their originals? why didn't they run? what were the bracelets?) but the point is, that wasn't the story to tell. That would have simply been another interesting future / "what if?" scenario played out for the plot, rather than a story about humanity, life, and the precious moments and opportunities it presents.
So, to those asking for the why, the what, the how - that's not what this film was about. It's a personal exploration, an empassioned cry, an imperative tale about the singularity of existence, and about making the correct decisions in life when that life has a limited life-span. At its essence it was about human life. Ishiguro's point is that we are the donors, not the 'people' in the film. We are the ones with a limited life that can end suddenly, and will probably seem to have no ultimate purpose. Yet even with those confines in place, we can still choose how to live and how to make the best use of that time. And whether that's 20, 30, or 90 years that theme still applies.
It's a brilliant film. One of the finest I've seen in the last decade. Stellar cast - Mulligan is a great of cinema in the making, and any film with Andrea Riseborough in can't be that bad.
Possibly a poor film review, but not a review of a poor film. And, hey, it's my blog.
It's a poster (honest)
So without further prevarication, here's my review of the 2010 film 'Never Let Me Go', starring Keira Knightly (both 'k's are pronounced of course), Carey Mulligan, and soon-to-be friendly-neighborhood (sic) Andrew Garfield.
Mostly this is a review of reviews - namely the IMDB ones, simply because a lot of them have clearly missed the point. This is an amazing film; beautifully and skilfully acted, well-written, and superbly photographed. The cast (both young, and slightly older) are universally excellent, fitting their performances into a stilted, slightly other-wordly framework, without ever falling into sentimental schmaltz.
For those of you who don't know Ishiguro's story, this is a film set in 'another England' one where human transplants have become the order of the day; a means to the end of elongating human life beyond it's current boundaries, with a devious, amoral scheme to ensure there are always organs available to harvest. The majority of criticism I have read centres around the central premise, and subsequent action (or inaction) of the main protagonists - "why didn't they run?" "couldn't they have escaped?" and so on. But to concentrate solely on this aspect of the film completely misses what the story is about. To draw a parallel, consider Speilberg's remake of 'War of the Worlds'. Those familiar with the original story and film know this is a fight between humanity and an invading alien force. Speilberg could simply have re-worked that theme into his film, but rather than do that, he took it as read that these events, the action, was unfolding as we all expected it to, and he chose instead to focus on the perspective as seen from an ordinary family. So rather than the epic battles between terrestrial and extraterrestrial forces, these are only hinted at, shown off-screen, their consequences felt but not observed. Instead we see the impact these moments have through the lens of a family unit; shattered then re-formed. We see the little person in the big picture. It becomes real and personal for us. The same story, from a different angle. A proper 're-imagining'.
Similarly 'Never Let Me Go' could have been a different film. There could have been scientific breakthroughs shown; a sea change in attitudes towards organ transplants and donors. Perhaps early experiments in embryo growth or cloning; scenes of failures. An admittance that a 'real' upbringing was required in order to succeed. Shots of moral protestations; marches, a political and ethical battle. The eventual creation of 'farm units'; creation of a control and monitoring mechanism, and so on and so on. We could have had that movie instead. The story of the mechanics of how the situation arose. But we didn't. Instead, just like Speilberg had done, we got the story from the personal perspective of a number of individuals caught up within the events. So, we didn't get to see all of the aspects that were there. Questions were left unanswered (why did they want to meet their originals? why didn't they run? what were the bracelets?) but the point is, that wasn't the story to tell. That would have simply been another interesting future / "what if?" scenario played out for the plot, rather than a story about humanity, life, and the precious moments and opportunities it presents.
Carey Mulligan ... rising star of cinema
So, to those asking for the why, the what, the how - that's not what this film was about. It's a personal exploration, an empassioned cry, an imperative tale about the singularity of existence, and about making the correct decisions in life when that life has a limited life-span. At its essence it was about human life. Ishiguro's point is that we are the donors, not the 'people' in the film. We are the ones with a limited life that can end suddenly, and will probably seem to have no ultimate purpose. Yet even with those confines in place, we can still choose how to live and how to make the best use of that time. And whether that's 20, 30, or 90 years that theme still applies.
It's a brilliant film. One of the finest I've seen in the last decade. Stellar cast - Mulligan is a great of cinema in the making, and any film with Andrea Riseborough in can't be that bad.
Possibly a poor film review, but not a review of a poor film. And, hey, it's my blog.
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Childhood Terrors
... or "TV programmes that scared the bejeesus out of you but were too afraid to ask"
There are two TV programmes I recall vividly as a child that I found terrifying. Really terrifying, not just a "ooh look a cuddly monster, I'll hide behind the sofa" style, but the "I can't sleep, cos if I shut my eyes it'll get me, soaked in sweat, gripping duvet cover for dear life" sort of way.
And recently I've managed to track them both down, and now possess both on DVD. Unwatched thus far, of course.
So, to make it clear, I never found Dr Who scary as a child, and I never watched it from behind the settee. It's just not that frightening (well, some of the recent Moffat episodes have been, but let's not wander too far from the path. You'll be able to pull me up on the 'wandering' thing shortly. Trust me).
Anyway, back to those programmes. Well, not actually. Whilst I'm in the general area I'll mention three films that left a great impression on me, and I think they are still quite effective today. But they were all first watched as a child, so bear with me. The first is 'Quatermass and the Pit'; it's the scene in the house towards the beginning, when the policeman is explaining that the house has always had a strange feeling and was generally empty, and the explanation of the origin of the street name - Hobbs Lane (being the name for the Devil I think?). The second is 'The Haunting' - the Robert Wise black and white version. Too creepy to go into details. It just is. And then there's "Something Evil" one of the TV movies Speilberg made before his big movie breakthrough came. Unlike 'Duel' this is a straight-forward horror movie, along the lines of several made in the mid- to early-70s ... couple move into farmhouse, strange things happen, turns out to be occupied by demons. In this incarnation the wife is played by Sandy Dennis, with Darren McGavin as her TV producer hubby. As is typical, 'she' is convinced something's afoot, but 'he' is more dismissive; the key scene is at the studio when he's reviewing some test footage taken at his house earlier in the day. "Wait, what was that? Rewind back for me." And behind his wife, from inside the window of his house, a pair of demonic red eyes glows then fades, as we zoom in. Unnerving.
Anyway, where was I? Oh yes ...
So, as a child I loved lego. The proper, hard to take apart, sharp and hard as glass stuff, not that flimsy collapsing inferior rubbish you often were treated to. And when I was but seven of eight my uncle gave me his son's lego collection (it was the yucky stuff by and large), in a lovely box he'd made himself (my uncle that is). About a metre square by four centimetres high, with a sliding cover made of hardboard. Beautifully painted on the cover was a road layout, around which you could build and place lego buildings, and there were a few cars in the box too. It was very, very nice. Lovely little compartments for your lego to be sorted into. Great stuff. However, on the back of that lid (on the rough criss-cross underside of the hardboard), if you could locate that box today - and I can; I don't "hand-down" my lego to no-one, not no how, no way, bud - you'd find a drawing of a house. A simple, childlike drawing; four windows, two up, to down, each divided into four 'panes'; door in the middle; chimney pot; fence; path; gate. You know the sort of thing. However, the 'garden' of the house unusually holds a number of rather unpleasent looking monoculus rock-like blobs. And the windows of that house ... well, someone has scribbled over them in some sort of pique.
It's all a bit sinister. Or not. As I did that drawing, echoing what the main protagonist of terrifying TV programme number one did. Although her actions had much more interesting consequences, other than merely defacing a fairly nice present. So, this is (I got there in the end) 'Escape into Night'. Based on the book 'Marianne's Dream' it's about a young girl, who whilst off school with a broken foot, draws a house in a sketchbook. Then when she falls asleep she awakens in the garden of that house. But it's a house with an occupant. A sickly, wheelchair-bound boy, who might just exist in real life. One who perhaps can't walk because he was never drawn with legs. In one encounter etched on my memory they argue, and when she wakes up she scribbles over the house. When she returns to the house in her next dream, black bars cover the windows, exactly mirroring the arced lines of scribbled lead she had made earlier that day. There's an out-of-tune radio that whispers to her; a grandfather clock with but a single hand; the rock-like sentinels in the garden with their light beams issuing from their single eye, slowly advancing on the house; and then, finally, the boy's lost father, set to return to the house in the final episode, blind, furious, and utterly deranged.
All this in the 4:20 slot for 'younger children' preceeding the likes of fluffy Magpie, and happy-go-lucky Blue Peter in the scheduling. I would watch it (on Wednesdays I think) on my own. Like all series at that age, it seemed to last forever, yet was only six episodes. Lost to time I thought (no-one else at school ever watched it ... in recent years I've almost doubted the memory) but it's now on youTube (illegally?), and those nice people at Network DVD have it for sale! Me bought. So, of course, it's terribly dated, with 'jolly hockey-sticks' children saying "mummy, mummy, whhhyy don't the poooor children like us?" yet imagine this as a children's programme, when you're seven.
If I have the wit I'll include a link or two below:
(watch the opening seconds, if only for that "dum dum dummm, darr da-darrrrr" of the ATV logo!) ... watch from 6:30 in for about 5 mins, until Marianne leaves the house again. This is just after she argued with Mark (the boy) so rubbed him out in her pad, and drew her friend in to take his place. #Fail, were she around today! Oh - and do watch the end credits, for more creep-out time :)
The second programme was a much shorter, but much much scarier memory. For which I blame my mother. All I recall of it was this: there's a scene set in Victorian times, I guess, of a man recounting a tale of terror. He claims that his house (or family) is haunted by the ghost of a horse. The man's house is by the edge of some moors. As he tells the tale, we cut to a view of the moor at night, the camera panning as though following something, before we switch to a view as though from a horse, the image bouncing up and down, the sound of heavy horse breath, the pounding of hooves. The scene switches to inside the house. A man is walking along the hallway away from the door. He stops, apparently startled by something. He turns. We are outside again, seeing as the horse, pounding towards the house, galloping down to the doorway. Back to the man, he opens his mouth as though to scream, but before he can a splintering crash breaks the silence. We're the horse again, in the house, the man before us, we bear down on him, then rise as though preparing to kick and trample him to his death ...
At which point, my mother says, "Oh I think this is a bit frightening for you, better get to bed." Oh yes, that's a good plan. Now I only have my imagination to terrify my for the rest of my life. Much better than seeing the whole thing and having the suspense dispelled.
So for (possibly) about forty years I've had that in my head, and it's really been a bit too scary for me to look into. And I didn't think that searching for "TV ghost horse Victorian" would be much good. But then again, I was wrong. So I now have in my possession series one of a short-lived thing called "The Rivals of Sherlock Holmes", a series of independent stories featuring other Victorian era detectives, who never enjoyed the Baker Street occupant's fame. And episode 5 is entitled, "The Horse of the Invisible" with plot synopsis: "A ghost detective enters the gas-lit shadows of the Higgins family in search of an invisible horse which haunts them." Now that sounds 'promising' (if that word is appropriate). And it even stars Donald Pleasance, and I have the vaguest of vague recollections of seeing him in the show. It's almost as though the more I consider it, the more I recall. The watching itself might take the odd stiff whisky ... or daylight. Plenty of daylight.
Well, there you have them. Two 'moments' from my childhood. Forgive me my rambling, but the context is quite crucial for these things.
What were the 'killer creepies' of your childhood? And have you laid those ghosts to rest, or do they still haunt you?
Monday, December 5, 2011
Flash Fiction Fun!
As one of my (two) followers is (at least) a Wannabe Writer, I thought I'd have a quick go. Following this little blog here, my attempt. Okay ... much less than 1000 words, but what can you expect for 15 minutes' work? :)
Silent Smile Satisfaction
I live in silence.
There are times when I'll look at you. Times when you think I'll speak, but I never do.
There are those times when I catch your eye, and you seem to understand. There's a glimpse. Something in your look that hints at understanding, and then it goes. It goes when I see your jaw tighten, when I watch your chest rise, and the air fill your lungs, preparing to say something. Sometimes it lasts longer. The understand. The moment. The point where I think you might know. But it fades. You kill it with your words. Choking away the silence and shattering the chance you might hear me. You speak and I drown, and there's simply no hope for me then. No hope.
Now, when I recall when there was hope, it seems like a foreign land. A country I once visited so long ago that I can't tell whether the recollection is a real memory, or simply something I imagined. If it's a real memory, then it's no familiar to me now than you are. So those times, those short times, I find myself hoping that it is just an invention of my mind. At least then I'll know there was never a time when we did share those thoughts; when our ideas were as one, and the future was always bright and full of colour. And hope. Ah, yes, that hope again. God preserve us from hope. Acceptance is such a better option I've found.
Then there are those times. The look. That glimpse. That sub-second stare, when I think that ... But no. Then you speak, and it's gone.
Ha! There you are. Looking at me all this time, as I've thought these thoughts. There you've been staring at me with that new look you've had for ... how long has it been? When did 'that' look first appear? Was I looking at you when it happened? Was it one of those times when you looked as though you wouldn't speak? A time when I hoped for hope. Ha ha. You see, I'm making myself laugh now. And yet still you look at me. The new look. Lingering longer than I've known it before. What is it ...
But now you turn, and walk away. Leaving me untouched by your words. I would smile if I could. If anyone would see my smile, and listen to the gentle breath slipping from my lips. Alone again. Safe again.
Your words unsaid. You. Me. Apart. The silence. At last. At last.
Silent Smile Satisfaction
I live in silence.
There are times when I'll look at you. Times when you think I'll speak, but I never do.
There are those times when I catch your eye, and you seem to understand. There's a glimpse. Something in your look that hints at understanding, and then it goes. It goes when I see your jaw tighten, when I watch your chest rise, and the air fill your lungs, preparing to say something. Sometimes it lasts longer. The understand. The moment. The point where I think you might know. But it fades. You kill it with your words. Choking away the silence and shattering the chance you might hear me. You speak and I drown, and there's simply no hope for me then. No hope.
Now, when I recall when there was hope, it seems like a foreign land. A country I once visited so long ago that I can't tell whether the recollection is a real memory, or simply something I imagined. If it's a real memory, then it's no familiar to me now than you are. So those times, those short times, I find myself hoping that it is just an invention of my mind. At least then I'll know there was never a time when we did share those thoughts; when our ideas were as one, and the future was always bright and full of colour. And hope. Ah, yes, that hope again. God preserve us from hope. Acceptance is such a better option I've found.
Then there are those times. The look. That glimpse. That sub-second stare, when I think that ... But no. Then you speak, and it's gone.
Ha! There you are. Looking at me all this time, as I've thought these thoughts. There you've been staring at me with that new look you've had for ... how long has it been? When did 'that' look first appear? Was I looking at you when it happened? Was it one of those times when you looked as though you wouldn't speak? A time when I hoped for hope. Ha ha. You see, I'm making myself laugh now. And yet still you look at me. The new look. Lingering longer than I've known it before. What is it ...
But now you turn, and walk away. Leaving me untouched by your words. I would smile if I could. If anyone would see my smile, and listen to the gentle breath slipping from my lips. Alone again. Safe again.
Your words unsaid. You. Me. Apart. The silence. At last. At last.
Monday, November 7, 2011
2012 Torch Lighter - yes, it does matter!
Today's news seems to be all about the route the Olympic torch is taking around the UK. At the moment I'm not that excited about it, yet I am quite passionate about who should carry the honour of lighting the flame in the Olympic stadium to launch The Games. And here's my thoughts on that very matter ...
There's a lot of betting apparently on who it will be, and here's a quite recent list:
There's a lot of betting apparently on who it will be, and here's a quite recent list:
- Sir Steve Redgrave - 1/2
- Dame Kelly Holmes - 7/1
- Tom Daley - 10/1
- Daley Thompson - 12/1
- Chris Hoy or reigning monarch (at the time) - 16/1
- Lord Sebastian Coe - 20/1
- The Princess Royal - 33/1
- David Cameron - 40/1
- Prince William and/or Kate Middleton - 40/1
- David Beckham or London Mayor (at the time) - 50/1
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Riots? What riots?
I recall quite vividly the riots of the 80s. They were scary. Gangs of men (not youths) night after night, day after day, engaged in pitched battles with the police. CS gas being deployed, barricades on roads, virtual curfews imposed on some boroughs. It was an attack on authority, the government, with racial tension mixed in, and with strong undertones of ideological and political divisions, back when the left was on the left, and the right on the right. Hundreds of police were injured, buildings set alight. And this went on for months across many cities. Dark days.
The "riots of 2011" as they'll no doubt be known, have also had terrible consequences - loss of life, buildings burnt, but have felt more like (and appear to have been) opportunistic theft committed in general by a few hundred young people with simple materialistic aims. They weren't out to protest, or make a political statement (and Lord knows they have plenty of easy targets ... criminal MPs; untrustworthy newspapers; greedy self-interested bankers; fat-cat CEOs) .. but no, rather than attacking any of these elements, they seemed to mainly be after a new pair of trainers, or a flat-screen TV. Way to make a point guys.
So forgive me if I've not felt like this is the end of civilization as we know it. Forgive me if it's looked like a bunch of youngsters thieving "cos they can". But that's youth for you ... okay, it's 'bad youth' for you. Of course, for every 'youth looter' there were many many more young people who didn't go looting. Society will always have its unseemly elements. That's why we have the law. That's why we punish. To deter others from following suit.
And of course, they weren't making a point. They were just out for what they could get. And maybe that's the irony, because rather than making a political statement against any of those groups I mentioned, they were simply following their lead but on a smaller scale. Hurting those same people, those same businesses, that were already suffering from an economy ravaged by rich influential people interested only in gaining more influence and wealth. Maybe these youths had found their missing role models after all, and in some ivory tower a fat CEO was tugging on a fatter Cuban, and saying "that's my boy" as the city burned.
For my part, I'm more surprised by the way in which we're discussing these riots as though we have no comprehension of what it means to be young. As though we don't know who 'youths' are. We're too keen to distance ourselves from "the youth" as though they're an alien species; forgetting that 10, 20, 30 years ago that was us. They aren't different people - just us, younger, and surely you can recall what that was like? You were often bored, felt awkward, and wanted to fit in. And had only a narrow perspective on consequences of actions, morality, and the like. But that's what being 'young' is, isn't it? That's why the law does not punish children to the same degree it can adults. We make the distinction. We say that these young people will lack the moral perspective we attribute to adults, so feel less able to judge them against the same yardstick we hold up to the more mature. And that's why we lay the emphasis on moral propriety on the parents, the guardians, of the young. We cannot expect the young to hold the same moral values as society as a whole, and it is the job of the parents, of society, of the state, to put in place the framework through which such ethical training can be given. So let's not throw our hands up the air in horror when children act immorally - for society has already accepted that, and has mechanisms in place for it. When the children are not controlled adequately, then the guardians are responsible. That is how the law views it, and that is how we should act.
What then about those 'young adults' who retain a lack of moral perspective as they enter adulthood? Well, again, this is why penalties exist to deter unlawful behaviour. The problem of "copycat" rioting wasn't caused by inadequate police response to the initial protests in Tottenham and subsequent looting. The entire youth population of the country were not suddenly mobilised by the thought that actions were going un-punished. No. It was only a few; those who were prepared to commit crime if they thought it would go unpunished; it had no impact on those who were not committing crime already because they knew it was wrong. The apparent police inaction did not create criminals, it merely gave those with criminal intent the opportunity to act on those impulses. When we are forced to remove citizens from society due to their actions (the basis of the hypothetical imperative on which our legal system is founded) then we have to some extent already failed. A civilized society's job is to create people that do not require the threat of criminal recrimination in order to remain law-abiding; when it fails in this task, it hides its failures from sight.
It's become too easy to lose perspective when the key elements that shape your life are too remote from the experiences you've had. You forget how amazing it is that you can turn on a tap and get clean, fresh water; that you can break a leg and call for free assistance from trained medics, and get that treatment without having to pay a penny; that you can walk the streets of a night in (relative) peace and safety. It's all taken for granted. We're soft, idle, with time on our hands and ready to blame the state when there's no local social club open to entertain us; as though that's an excuse (and how many social clubs were there for youngsters in the 30s, the 40s?) We have to fall back on the games available for free on the internet, on phones; the television; or (perish the thought) go to the free local library and read a book (yeah - there was entertainment before TV, honest).
The problem isn't that life's too hard, but that life's become to 'easy'. You won't find anyone rioting in Somalia. When your concerns lie around how you'll live until tomorrow, there's not enough time to worry about whether your smart-phone is too embarrassingly out-of-date to use in public.
We're in a society where 'what you have' is so much more important than 'what you are'. It's a trend started 30 years or more ago, and reinforced by every pointless purchase we make. Whenever we decry someone for wearing "that dress, again!?" we're doing it. Or saying "you're using an iPhone2 ?!"; as though it *matters*, as though it means something, as though it's important.
The elements that make up the issue are clear. We/society created them. And we have a way to deal with them. And that's what we're doing. So they happened. Those who are guilty will hopefully pay the price, and we'll move on. Society will change, yet roughly stay the same.
Not the end of the world. Not the end of civilization. A few people performing criminal acts in a time when moral role models are hard to come by. But we've been through worse times. So chin up, on to tomorrow and make things better one person at a time. There's no better way.
The "riots of 2011" as they'll no doubt be known, have also had terrible consequences - loss of life, buildings burnt, but have felt more like (and appear to have been) opportunistic theft committed in general by a few hundred young people with simple materialistic aims. They weren't out to protest, or make a political statement (and Lord knows they have plenty of easy targets ... criminal MPs; untrustworthy newspapers; greedy self-interested bankers; fat-cat CEOs) .. but no, rather than attacking any of these elements, they seemed to mainly be after a new pair of trainers, or a flat-screen TV. Way to make a point guys.
So forgive me if I've not felt like this is the end of civilization as we know it. Forgive me if it's looked like a bunch of youngsters thieving "cos they can". But that's youth for you ... okay, it's 'bad youth' for you. Of course, for every 'youth looter' there were many many more young people who didn't go looting. Society will always have its unseemly elements. That's why we have the law. That's why we punish. To deter others from following suit.
And of course, they weren't making a point. They were just out for what they could get. And maybe that's the irony, because rather than making a political statement against any of those groups I mentioned, they were simply following their lead but on a smaller scale. Hurting those same people, those same businesses, that were already suffering from an economy ravaged by rich influential people interested only in gaining more influence and wealth. Maybe these youths had found their missing role models after all, and in some ivory tower a fat CEO was tugging on a fatter Cuban, and saying "that's my boy" as the city burned.
For my part, I'm more surprised by the way in which we're discussing these riots as though we have no comprehension of what it means to be young. As though we don't know who 'youths' are. We're too keen to distance ourselves from "the youth" as though they're an alien species; forgetting that 10, 20, 30 years ago that was us. They aren't different people - just us, younger, and surely you can recall what that was like? You were often bored, felt awkward, and wanted to fit in. And had only a narrow perspective on consequences of actions, morality, and the like. But that's what being 'young' is, isn't it? That's why the law does not punish children to the same degree it can adults. We make the distinction. We say that these young people will lack the moral perspective we attribute to adults, so feel less able to judge them against the same yardstick we hold up to the more mature. And that's why we lay the emphasis on moral propriety on the parents, the guardians, of the young. We cannot expect the young to hold the same moral values as society as a whole, and it is the job of the parents, of society, of the state, to put in place the framework through which such ethical training can be given. So let's not throw our hands up the air in horror when children act immorally - for society has already accepted that, and has mechanisms in place for it. When the children are not controlled adequately, then the guardians are responsible. That is how the law views it, and that is how we should act.
What then about those 'young adults' who retain a lack of moral perspective as they enter adulthood? Well, again, this is why penalties exist to deter unlawful behaviour. The problem of "copycat" rioting wasn't caused by inadequate police response to the initial protests in Tottenham and subsequent looting. The entire youth population of the country were not suddenly mobilised by the thought that actions were going un-punished. No. It was only a few; those who were prepared to commit crime if they thought it would go unpunished; it had no impact on those who were not committing crime already because they knew it was wrong. The apparent police inaction did not create criminals, it merely gave those with criminal intent the opportunity to act on those impulses. When we are forced to remove citizens from society due to their actions (the basis of the hypothetical imperative on which our legal system is founded) then we have to some extent already failed. A civilized society's job is to create people that do not require the threat of criminal recrimination in order to remain law-abiding; when it fails in this task, it hides its failures from sight.
It's become too easy to lose perspective when the key elements that shape your life are too remote from the experiences you've had. You forget how amazing it is that you can turn on a tap and get clean, fresh water; that you can break a leg and call for free assistance from trained medics, and get that treatment without having to pay a penny; that you can walk the streets of a night in (relative) peace and safety. It's all taken for granted. We're soft, idle, with time on our hands and ready to blame the state when there's no local social club open to entertain us; as though that's an excuse (and how many social clubs were there for youngsters in the 30s, the 40s?) We have to fall back on the games available for free on the internet, on phones; the television; or (perish the thought) go to the free local library and read a book (yeah - there was entertainment before TV, honest).
The problem isn't that life's too hard, but that life's become to 'easy'. You won't find anyone rioting in Somalia. When your concerns lie around how you'll live until tomorrow, there's not enough time to worry about whether your smart-phone is too embarrassingly out-of-date to use in public.
We're in a society where 'what you have' is so much more important than 'what you are'. It's a trend started 30 years or more ago, and reinforced by every pointless purchase we make. Whenever we decry someone for wearing "that dress, again!?" we're doing it. Or saying "you're using an iPhone2 ?!"; as though it *matters*, as though it means something, as though it's important.
The elements that make up the issue are clear. We/society created them. And we have a way to deal with them. And that's what we're doing. So they happened. Those who are guilty will hopefully pay the price, and we'll move on. Society will change, yet roughly stay the same.
Not the end of the world. Not the end of civilization. A few people performing criminal acts in a time when moral role models are hard to come by. But we've been through worse times. So chin up, on to tomorrow and make things better one person at a time. There's no better way.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Banning Twitter? Uh-huh ... that'll work
As I type we're just emerging from what will likely be called "the Riots of 2011" in future years. There's much I could / have said but here's a quick response to the proposals to 'ban Twitter' in times when it's believed to be being used by rioters to communicate their plans.
It's a bit barmy for (at least) four reasons:
1. Why punish Twitter?
Okay, why punish Facebook or whatever? It's not the vehicle's problem, any more than it is television's issue for showing pictures of the riots. Certainly I didn't think "ooh - riots - let's go out and join in" when I saw pictures of the Tottenham unrest. So it doesn't 'incite' those who do not wish to be incited. That's as crazy as saying that violent films cause violence.
So, it's silly to ban Twitter because it's not a cause.
2. Why push communication underground?
If the rioters weren't using Twitter / Facebook then they would use their mobile phones, email, IM, whatever to communicate. In fact, it was mainly BBM that was being blamed wasn't it? But more importantly, if the messages are on Twitter they are in the public domain. We can all read it, see it, and see who is posting these messages. Isn't it better to know these things, than have them being passed around in secret where we won't be able to monitor them? Give people the forum to express their (odd) views, then we'll know how they are thinking rather than hide it away so we won't know. This way we can hopefully dissuade people early in their criminal careers, rather than have them silently growing in hatred and plan heinous acts for months and years.
So, better to let people have the rope to hang themselves, than withhold it from them like an over-cautious nanny.
3. It harms the innocent as well as the guilty.
A lot of police forces are using Twitter now to both monitor criminal activity, and to spread information in a timely and effective manner. At times when people are feeling anxious, withholding information will spread panic, not calm. It's better to work with the technology rather than throw your arms up in outrage at it, and insist it is removed. You can't ignore the good that comes from the positive messages being spread just because of the negative.
So, it's best to show how Twitter can work for good, rather than remove it and lose all benefits.
4. It plain won't work.
If China with an internet infrastructure controlled directly by the governing body can't block Google, then the UK are hardly going to manage the same with Twitter when they have much less control. There are many Twitter clones out there. And blocking an internet service is very hard to do. Very hard.
So, it will waste resources and fail.
---------
Just a few quick thoughts.
It's a bit barmy for (at least) four reasons:
1. Why punish Twitter?
Okay, why punish Facebook or whatever? It's not the vehicle's problem, any more than it is television's issue for showing pictures of the riots. Certainly I didn't think "ooh - riots - let's go out and join in" when I saw pictures of the Tottenham unrest. So it doesn't 'incite' those who do not wish to be incited. That's as crazy as saying that violent films cause violence.
So, it's silly to ban Twitter because it's not a cause.
2. Why push communication underground?
If the rioters weren't using Twitter / Facebook then they would use their mobile phones, email, IM, whatever to communicate. In fact, it was mainly BBM that was being blamed wasn't it? But more importantly, if the messages are on Twitter they are in the public domain. We can all read it, see it, and see who is posting these messages. Isn't it better to know these things, than have them being passed around in secret where we won't be able to monitor them? Give people the forum to express their (odd) views, then we'll know how they are thinking rather than hide it away so we won't know. This way we can hopefully dissuade people early in their criminal careers, rather than have them silently growing in hatred and plan heinous acts for months and years.
So, better to let people have the rope to hang themselves, than withhold it from them like an over-cautious nanny.
3. It harms the innocent as well as the guilty.
A lot of police forces are using Twitter now to both monitor criminal activity, and to spread information in a timely and effective manner. At times when people are feeling anxious, withholding information will spread panic, not calm. It's better to work with the technology rather than throw your arms up in outrage at it, and insist it is removed. You can't ignore the good that comes from the positive messages being spread just because of the negative.
So, it's best to show how Twitter can work for good, rather than remove it and lose all benefits.
4. It plain won't work.
If China with an internet infrastructure controlled directly by the governing body can't block Google, then the UK are hardly going to manage the same with Twitter when they have much less control. There are many Twitter clones out there. And blocking an internet service is very hard to do. Very hard.
So, it will waste resources and fail.
---------
Just a few quick thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)