Make your own free website on Tripod.com
Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
RSS Feed
View Profile
« March 2006 »
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31
You are not logged in. Log in
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
Misc.
Poker
Politics
Religion
Television
Sleepless in Fulham: Rambling and gambling by David Young
Monday, 20 March 2006
Does TV have all the best writers?
Topic: Television
I wasted two hours of my life last night watching the third movie in the 'Matrix' trilogy. Don't ask me what it was about. I've really no idea, as it was so boring my mind wandered throughout most of the action. I thought the first of the series was excellent, as it had some novel ideas. It's a shame they didn't end it there.

So many film makers seem to think that special effects can make up for a lack of ideas. They can't. I've been lent some great lower budget films by my flatmate recently and found them far more satisfying. Do see 'Max' (John Cusack and Noah Taylor), 'Nine Queens' (Argentinian) and 'Bullet Boy' (low budget British film, set in Hackney). You won't be in a rush back to the cinema again. When you don't have the budget for special effects, you're forced to think of interesting plots.

All the best writing seems to be in television now. Last year I went to Blockbusters and my local lending library several times and found myself ignoring most of the films there. Instead I rented Series 1-5 of the 'West Wing', 'The Jewel in the Crown' and Season 1 of '24'. I've also enjoyed 'House', 'CSI' and 'Desperate Housewives' on TV. Unlike today's movies they aren't aimed at teenagers or naive social activists.

When looking at a list of the films nominated for the Oscars this year, I realised that I had only seen one of them: the Wallace and Gromit film! I'm mildly interested in seeing 'Capote', as Philip Seymour Hoffman is excellent in almost everything he does. But I've little or no desire to see the issue films of George Clooney, as I don't want to be subjected to their biased point of view. On the subject of which, full marks to my sister for walking out of 'The Constant Gardnener' due to its anti-corporate bias. I've never walked out of a film before the end, but have great respect for those who do.

_ DY at 4:49 PM GMT
Updated: Monday, 20 March 2006 4:51 PM GMT
Post Comment | View Comments (12) | Permalink

Monday, 20 March 2006 - 9:46 PM GMT


"But I've little or no desire to see the issue films of George Clooney, as I don't want to be subjected to their biased point of view."

Such as?

"On the subject of which, full marks to my sister for walking out of 'The Constant Gardnener' due to its anti-corporate bias."

And what have the corporations done for you?

"I've never walked out of a film before the end, but have great respect for those who do."

You are too much of a miser to do so.

Tuesday, 21 March 2006 - 10:22 AM GMT

Name: Michael
Home Page: http://www.poorbridge.com

Why would you walk out of a film because it is biased? The Constant Gardener is a very good film, whether you agree with its politics or not. There are so many more 'worthy' films to walk out of, and for far better reasons than that they don't fit in with your own viewpoint.

Tuesday, 21 March 2006 - 1:52 PM GMT

Name: 89TJ
Home Page: http://doublethrough.blogspot.com

Sometimes you sound like you have completely cracked up and are now frothing at the mouth... "Can't watch George Clooney movie, him a liberal, like Bruce Willis he refreshingly right wing".

And 'anti-corporate bias'. Jeez. Corporations have it so hard don't they?

Personally, as a far-left liberal, I enjoy right wing newspapers and other right wing media.

Anyway, next time you go to the flicks, I highly recommend 'V for Vendetta'.

Tuesday, 21 March 2006 - 5:14 PM GMT

Name: roGER
Home Page: http://rogers-rants.blogspot.com/

Good old David, one of a kind!

:-)

- roGER

Wednesday, 22 March 2006 - 1:12 PM GMT

Name: Dom

Don't go and see V for Vendetta it's an adaptation of an Alan Moore comic and both previous efforts to adapt his work (League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, From Hell) have been pants. Read the comic instead (although it was written in the 80's and has an anti-Thatcher message so errr, maybe you should give it a miss)

I walked out of I Robot.

If you want a nice low budget flick DY go for "Intacto". It's Spanish and it's about gambling. Top film.

Wednesday, 22 March 2006 - 3:26 PM GMT

Name: David Young

Funnily enough, my flatmate lent me Intacto also! It was good, but there were bits that didn't make a whole lot of sense. Why for instance did all these 'lucky' people want to risk their lives? What was the upside? The old man (Max von Sydow) didn't seem too happy with his lot, so why would they want to be like him?

DY

Thursday, 23 March 2006 - 5:01 PM GMT


Recommended reading for Mr Young.

http://english.pravda.ru/print/opinion/feedback/77732-civilization-0

You'll probably have to take your blinkers off to understand it.

Thursday, 23 March 2006 - 9:13 PM GMT

Name: David Young

I would certainly need some help understanding it, that's for sure. What I can't understand about the argument that America went to Iraq purely to get its oil is:

1) Why it didn't take it in 1991 after its defeat of Iraq in the first Gulf Oil.

2) And why it didn't just buy it as and when needed from Saddam, by pulling out the chequebook. Seems a fair question, given that America has spent enough on the war to buy several year's worth of oil.

DY

Thursday, 23 March 2006 - 9:50 PM GMT


1) Maybe because it was a step too far at the time. Maybe George Bush Sr was not upto it. Gulf War 2 does smack of completing the job though.

2) It is not only about Iraqi oil. You will notice that since taking Iraq all "Infidel" bases have been removed from Saudi Arabia. Iraq is the new centre of operations for the US empire in the Mid East. Of course, if it had not invaded Iraq the US would have had to take out a Euro denominated check book to buy Iraqi oil. The war has cost the US exactly $0. More dollars will be printed to pay for the war. It's the way the US has operated since coming off the gold standard. Print dollars, buy things, inflate the economy, make dollar worth less everyday. $9 trillion is a lot but if you keep devaluing the dollar then it isn't so bad.

Sadam's usefulness was over anyway. The US needed to move its troops out of Saudi Arabia, no doubt at the behest of the Al Saud family. GWB told them okay but we move them to Iraq. The Saudis were more than happy to see that happen. In addition the US gets a base right next to its #1 enemy.

I would say it's a combination of oil and bases. China is only just on the other side of Iran and so the US has to be on Iran's doorstep too for when the price of oil starts hitting economy wrecking levels.

I am not entirely against any of this. I would just rather our "leaders" were more open. However, we live in a liberalised western world and people are just plain embarassed to accept that we are going to have to become nasty imperialists again to safeguard a way of live we have become too used to.

It wasn't so long ago that our grandparents had horses rather than cars, grew most of their own food or battered with neighbours. Even the Arabs understand this. They have a saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies an aeroplane. His son will ride a camel."

Whilst the scientists are trying to come up with alternatives to everything that oil does we need to secure all the world's oil otherwise life is going to be very messy indeed. Rather we did this than anyone else. Tony (sleaze reptile that he is) knows this, which is why he hangs onto the US coat tails and won't accept the Euro.

Friday, 24 March 2006 - 12:12 AM GMT

Name: David Young

James,

now that I have an RSS feed, like you asked for, would you mind putting your name to your posts?

David

Friday, 24 March 2006 - 6:53 PM GMT

Name: TRS

"Of course, if it had not invaded Iraq the US would have had to take out a Euro denominated check book to buy Iraqi oil. The war has cost the US exactly $0. More dollars will be printed to pay for the war. "

It would appear DY has no monopoly over dodgy logic on this blog.

You're saying the US invaded Iraq because they prefer to print dollars than get out the euro chequebook?


Why didn't they just print $9tn, buy ?7.4tn on the currency markets - then buy some oil with that?

I have neither the time nor the will to explain money supply theory, independence of the Fed etc - I suggest an undergraduate economics textbook if you're truly are interested in learning about this.

Friday, 31 March 2006 - 12:55 PM GMT


They won't buy Euros to buy oil because that would be the end of the dollar as a reserve currency.

The US needs the world to have the dollar as its reserve so that most world trade is performed with the dollar.

If the world switched to the Euro then the world's central banks would dump their dollar reserves. It would then all head back to the US and hyperinflate the economy.

View Latest Entries