Wo-is-me, YouTube has taken a turn for the worst! More on this in the New Year.

That actually sounded kind of cool ("More on this in the New Year", not the destruction of YouTube).

Thomas.

I in no way attempt to be a clone-copy of the blog New Lines From A Floating Life with this post, however, I must borrow a fairly common theme from the author or said blog for a moment or two. That topic being poetry. Now, in my search, during my ENGL2605 Reading Poetry course last semester, I happened upon poetry that stuck with me through the fifteen weeks, and even now still occupies my mind every now and then.

The author isn't probably considered the greatest of all time, in fact, he probably isn't even someone you'd put into the short list. Rudyard Kipling does, however, show off something all together interesting and insightful in his collection of poems called Epitaphs of the War 1914 - 18. Now there is twenty-three poems in this collection and, as you most likely could tell from the title, it's a collection of epitaphs. But it's not just from Johnny, Billy and Smithy Soldier's funerals, but it's what Kipling writes in regards to the multitude of people that had a role in the war, were affected by it etc.

I give you the link to a page that has the collection of the poems to read at your own time, but I would like to bring attention to the following two:

Batteries out of Ammunition
If any mourn us in the workshop, say
We died because the shift kept holiday.

Common Form
If any question why we died,
Tell them, because our fathers lied.

I could bore you with details about contrast, form etc. etc., but frankly, knowing that I was prone to falling asleep during some lectures, I fear that falling asleep at your computer could prove to be slightly dangerous. Suffice to say that I find the first one humourous, the second one poignant, and both a good example of fine poetry.

Of course, they are no Paradise Lost. And Kipling is no Milton.

And, a side note (that has nothing to do what-so-ever about poetry), if you don't know who General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chief's of Staff is, in this picture, and proclaim to be trying to change the world (or some crap like that) then you are an utter fool and an imbecile.

Thank-you.

Thomas.

Refer to this as the edit to my '2006 appears to be the end of a lot of things' post:

- Saddam Hussein is strung high and tight on American-made gallows. Good riddance to the ... well, you probably have your own choice words for the guy.

Thomas.

And as the day nearly draws to an end (and your hope that I would show some compassion for you all) I would like to wish everyone a merry Christmas, happy holidays and the best for the time at hand.

Thomas.

In case you are blind (in which case I am wondering how you're reading this at all) I would like to alert you to the changes that have gone on around here. I have been using the Beta version of Blogger for a while, but through fear of losing the changes I had made to the HTML of my non-Beta site, I tried to change things as little as possible.

However, I've finally done the full upgrade and think that it looks quite good now. The features (to plug the product for a moment) far surpass the old version and I expect I'll employ them quite often. Already you can see that I have a list of my Top Ten movies (so that, in the future, when I post about my favourite movies, it doesn't look like I'm poaching your topic Ninglun) and I think it could come in handy if I were to do my 2006 Top Ten before the year is out.

Thomas.

The past few years have really been landmark years for television. They were the waves that brought in the 'next generation' of television shows. As shows like Seinfeld, Frasier, Friends, The Sopranos, Everybody Loves Raymond all come to an end, shows to replace the popular void they leave came into debut, especially in 2004 and 2005, for example, The O.C., Boston Legal, Lost, Desperate Housewives, The Apprentice, House, Arrested Development among more.

2006 however wasn't a year of debuts that concreted a show into the framework of popular culture. Sure My Name is Earl, Jericho, Commander in Chief and Prison Break made their mark, really, only these four created any major impact on television this year, and further, on Prison Break was the break out success and lock of them all. This is a stark contrast to the debuts of shows between '03 ad '05, mostly mentioned above, where there were many locks and resounding, debuting shows.

In fact, 2006, as was mentioned by Tim in a comment to the post below, was a year where many a show was mismanaged:

• Arrested Development, after being marketed in the most horrendous and haphazard way, was finally canceled, but not after having to stay awake to past midnight to catch the final episodes. Here is more on my views of Arrested Development;
• Commander in Chief's time slot was moved more times than President Allen had to face a national threat (and that happened in all eighteen episodes!), then it disappeared, then returned at 11:30p.m. six months after fans thought it dead and buried. I wrote about this problem here earlier on in November;
• In Australia, The Office (U.S.), a ratings hit in its home country and a 'spin-off' from a phenomenon in Britain, was hidden in the wee hours of the night on Channel Ten without a single advertisement (and when I say wee hours, I mean 11:30 if everything was running to schedule. Of course, it never ran to schedule);
• The latest season of The Apprentice docked at Sundays, 11 p.m. (and wouldn't you know it, in researching for this article I find that The Apprentice has moved to midnight Tuesday and Wednesday! It's likely to be because it's the two-hour season final, but seriously, I wouldn't have known otherwise because, again, mismanagement);
• Survivor, after being billed as 'live' from America, hot off the satelite, went from 8:30 to 9:30 to 10:30 over a series of fortnights;
• If you didn't watch the relatively good show in Criminal Minds to the 9:30p.m.-10:00p.m. portion of the show, you would have missed the regular ad of "Boston Legal can now be seen at 10:30, Monday nights". This ad would feature in every Monday episode of Criminal Minds, and not one promotional ad for Boston Legal during prime time! Even after it was shown at Prime Time during the first season!;
• Scrubs, the undeniably great and hilarious medical comedy went from 9:30p.m. billing originally to 10:30p.m. Tuesdays and Thursdays to midnight some Tuesdays and most Thursdays;
• The Sopranos, the final season which finally Channel Nine got around to bloody showing, is purportedly on at 11:00p.m. Monday nights. Of course, this is a free-to-air station we are talking about, so airing generally began closer to midnight;
• I mentioned Criminal Minds earlier. This was a ratings hit here in Australia and Channel Seven decided to, well, instead of prolonging its run, shorten it by showing two episodes a week. While I wasn't displeased to watch it so often, it was another example of horrible programming by Seven once more;
• Jericho, a debuting show, and an interesting one at that (though it wained towards the end) disappeared quite a few times for reasons I am still to comprehend;

If that doesn't prove a year of disgrace for advertising, schedule management and care for viewers (not even just the loyal viewers) than I don't know what could. Except maybe cancelling every show that would go up against, say, a sporting event. Wait! That's happened twice! Any shows that were up against The Soccer World Cup and The Ashes all got put on the hold shelf so that they didn't lose their precious ratings. And for us who, well, didn't want to watch The World Cup all that much and would much rather watch the shows that we had been for the year leading up, we were forced to watch it all because there was nothing else on.

Now, for all that crap that went on, there were some (though not all that many) smart decisions made by stations:

• 24 is a tiring series that only die-hard fans watch from start to end because it can get tedious, long and early episodes easily forgotten. Seven actually made the decision to start showing two episodes per night. While this was a stupid move with Criminal Minds, which each episode is effectively independent of the previous and the next, for a show like 24, it was a very smart, brave, and ultimately successful move as you need the episodes as close together because they rely so heavily on the back-story;
• Seven (proving to be the smartest of the stupid) didn't, and haven't, mess around with their guarantees' time slot all that much (Lost, Desperate Housewives, Prison Break, The Amazing Race, My Name is Earl);
• There wasn't an abundance of repeats of what we had just watched. In previous years stations tended to repeat the entire season that you had just watched, which would kill the uniqueness and anticipation of the upcoming season. This year, however:
• Lost was repeated for insomniacs (midnight on Seven every day of the week);
• Desperate Housewives repeated for the, well, desperate housewife (midday everyday before the end of school term, showing two per day);
• Prison Break not at all;
• The O.C. not at all;
• House later down the track (only within the past month and a half, and at a slot (7:30p.m. Wednesday instead of the usual 8:30p.m.) where really it's only on because there's nothing else to put in and it filled the gap between the final of one show and the debut of another, so it wasn't on for all that long).
• Debuting shows were hyped quite well:
• Jericho for months before it actually showed, creating strong ratings for the starting episodes;
  
• My Name is Earl was hyped just as long with entries from his list, and a pretty good synopsis of what the list is for, all before the first show aired;
• Prison Break, without question, was the most eagerly anticipated series debut of the year, and was mainly helped by the campaign-like promotion of the series;
• Commander in Chief was, for a while, after the ad campaign, the talk of the town in my circle, and across the political pond, as questions about the show sprung up from the ad campaign. Really the popularity of the show, before its debut, was caused by word-of-mouth and the fact that two Hollywood heavyweights (Geena Davis and Donald Sutherland) were part-and-parcel of the show.
  
• Returning shows were also hyped quite well:
• Lost and Desperate Housewives both ended on cliffhangers of sorts (especially Lost and the hatch), and only teaser ads were needed to get the same strong ratings as the first season;
• The O.C. returned shortly after the Season Three final with the hook that we were seeing Season Four the same time as it was airing in the U.S.. It was the first time this idea had been used for this show, and long overdue - we were generally months behind for The O.C.;
• Survivor was the same. We always get it the same time as America because the surprise is killed, and ultimately the ratings, if it gets out from America that so-and-so wins. However, the fact that it was at the same time was also made a selling point;
  

Finally, the quality of the shows I watched was a varied basket. While The O.C.'s Season Three was the worst yet, and likely lost viewers, Season Four, so far, compares (though doesn't surpass) the with Season One (perhaps a post on this is required, however, if you're a fan and have watched both, you'll understand without needing explanation). This is also the first year that a two new seasons have coincided. So when I say it was probably a more positive year for the quality of The O.C., that's only because Season Four is kick-ass and Season Three had its high-points. My problems with Season Three were written about early on in the life of this blog here.

Lost's Season One was the stand-out from its debut, and while it wavered at times during Season Two, it finished up stronger than it opened, did what it does best (that being raising more questions by the end than providing answers) and is eagerly anticipated to return with Season Three. In the end, the quality of Season Two was up there with Season One, but the changing and modification of characters, against the grain of what they were initially established as, created a few low-points. But, then again, anyone who stood out the changes realised that these changes actually all worked out for the best by the end. Again, this is probably something that deserves a post of its own, or many, to cover each character's changes in depth.

Survivor took a gamble on racially-dividing the tribes. It paid off as it got free publicity (of course, not all good), saw huge ratings in the opening, then died off. As an avid Survivor fan, I've lasted this long, and it's only really just got good in the past few episodes. Prior to this, it was neither here nor there. So the quality, as a whole, puts it back in the pack and not a stand out, but with enough episodes to go, it could improve and turn out to be one of the better series.

The Amazing Race is the 'family' season. Well behind when compared to the series last shown in the United States, I suspect we are going to be shown every series (and have to endure them all, good or bad) to catch up. This one has its moments, but overall, it's not the best.

Commander in Chief, Boston Legal, Jericho, 24, Criminal Minds all had a roller-coaster ride in terms of quality. I've talked the quality of Boston Legal here (the fall in its quality) and here (the return to greatness) and Commander in Chief here, and as a whole, while all these programs get the overall rating of good (and great in the cases of Commander in Chief and Boston Legal) you could easily have asked me if I'd be happy to miss an episode (and really, by the end of Criminal Minds, I was so over-dosed with it that I couldn't be bothered picking up the remote to even put it on) and I'd have replied in the affirmative.

The Apprentice, and the beginning of this season, is documented here. Overall it's been a good seris, and certainly better than the last couple. Obviously, it's never going to be as good as the Season One or Two, but that's because its uniqueness has diminished. Though, with reported changes to the format (such as winners for the tasks living in a mansion for the next three days and the losers living in a tent-city) I suspect it will pick-up again.

I wrote a quick little reflection of The Office (U.S.) earlier on in July here. Nothing has changed: it's still, in Australia at least, the unsung American comedy that is still showing.

And what else can I possibly say about Arrested Development? I've given it glowing praise here, I can't say it's the greatest comedy any other way really.

So all in all was 2006 a successful year for television? Well, for pre-established fans: yes. The shows that people could have been fans of delivered, and while at times questionably, by the end of the year's Seasons, for the most part, it was easy to forget the bad and remember the good. In terms of programming, it was a God-awful year - stations need to get their act together for 2007 and settle shows into slots. Because no new blockbuster shows really came out, other than Prison Break, fans had to settle with what they have had for the past year or two (not that that was really a problem, it gave the audience less to think about (and that's why we watch most of the T.V. shows we watch)), so mass-migration of fans from one show to another wasn't on the cards. Think of this year like the Western Front in World War One - the trenches the shows, the fans the soldiers. No one was moving, everyone was sticking to their guns, and in the end, each side thought they were a winner for the most part because neither had given into the enemy. Will 2007 be the year to see the deadlock crack and new, massively popular, 'cultural icon' shows shake things up? Who knows. What we do, though, is that the bankable shows are headed into their second, third, fourth and fifth seasons, and the deeper they go, the harder they are to break fans away with new shows. It comes back to quality: if the quality of the show disappears, so do the fans.

Here's to a new year of television!

Thomas.

So 2006 shapes up as the year of ends, and for the most part the end of things that we would rather continue, and things continuing that we would rather see end.

• Shane Warne calls it quits on Australian international cricket, domestic cricket etc.;
• Glen McGrath too announces he will retire;
  
• Ian Thorpe retires from competition;
• Michael Schumacher also retires. Competition in F1 racing resumes;
• Andre Agassi calls it a day. Everyone is still wondering why he married Steffi Graf;
• Thankfully Damien Martyn ends his cricketing career as well;
• Arrested Development sadly comes to an end;
• Commander in Chief, after a single season, is given the boot;
• Republican majority in the Senate comes to an end after so many years of hellish rule when they lose the 2006 General Elections;
• Donald Rumsfeld resigns from his post as Defense Secretary. We are all still waiting for Dick Cheney to invite him, and not just his career, hunting;
• Ariel Sharon's tenure as Prime Minister comes to an end;
• YouTube, as a unique, individual and non-corporate 'entity', ends upon being bought by Google;
• John Bolton's short-lived position as American representative to the United Nations;
• Steve Irwin, Peter Brock, Richard Carleton, Milton Friedman, Augusto Pinochet, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Slobodan Milošević all ended;
• Silvio Berlusconi is ousted, by the voters, as Italian Prime Minister (though doesn't seem to get the hint and still wants back in);
• Mark Foley's political career, well, effectively his life comes to an end. If it's not bad enough that he was a pedophile, but he was a gay Republican! It's not a good year for the G.O.P. is it?;
• The end of the world (according the The Bible Code, which is of course as reputable a source of predictions for the future of the world as the horoscopes and tarot readers, and certainly not based on circumstantial and flimsy evidence whatsoever);
• The last active battleships in the world, part of the United States' navy, is scratched;
• God's grip on the U.S. House of Representatives comes to an end as a black muslim, Keith Ellison, is elected. Republican are encouraged to attend the KKK's Washington protests;
• Bob Barker retires. He features in the next episode of The Price is Right as part of the end prize showcase;
• Common sense came to an end as very few people were able to accurately report, read, pick up a paper or do any research on what Pope Benedict XVI really said about Islam in his lecture;
• At common sense's funeral, a fitting reminder of how abused it was in its life and use in society was brought up as no one was able to see the true meaning behind John Kerry's comments of:

"Education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don't, you get stuck in Iraq.";

• N.S.W. dominance of the N.R.L. comes to an end after 98 years with out one N.S.W. team makes the final;
• Serbia and Montenegro files for divorce, thus ending the union of the countries;
• The end of the Fox Footy Channel ... wait, you didn't notice that it was missing did you?;
• Pluto's status as a a planet comes to an end as it is demoted to 'dwarf status'. The Union of 'Little People', calling for equal rights, is still fighting on its behalf;
• The Israel/Lebanon conflict starts ... then ends ... then goes back to normal (that being unofficially started);
• B.B.C.'s Top of the Pops comes to an end after 42 years of broadcast. Not since The Beatles
• The Transatlantic Aircraft Terrorist Plot doesn't even get off the ground (no pun intended ... of course there was a pun intended! It took me ten minutes to think of it!);
• Military commissions that are trying detainees at Guantanamo Bay should have come to an end after they are found illegal by the U.S. Supreme Court. But who's going to stop them?

have they shown a popular home-grown musician or group;

Next, a look at 2006's delivery of movies and television shows. What was good? What was good? What was even on? Luckily I was on the pulse (well, on the chair in front of the T.V. for all hours of the day and night) and can give you an unbiased and opinion-free summary of what happened. And if you believed that then you need help. Help I can provide for a low low fee ...

Thomas.

This is a generic holiday season greeting. It is in no way associated with, nor representing or to be represented by, any particular religion, significant religious day of worship, religious holiday, religious iconography or motifs whatsoever. By receiving and accepting this greeting the receiver hereby waves any legal precedence of litigation or monetary compensation for any physical or psychological anguish or trauma experienced from this greeting.

Furthermore, this greeting also extends the thanks, best wishes and luck for the next year of the writer which is also not related to any source of cultural offense to any that receive this.
Again, legal groundwork for any sort of court proceedings is waved.

Thomas.

I take a break from celebrations to say that this is quite a good and concise article about everything that has transpired, and what some of the fallout will be from, the Ashes Series.

Back to the party!

Thomas.

I had to read Tom Stoppard's The Real Inspector Hound for Extension English One, in Year 12, two years ago. We also had to "act" (in the sense that it was six of us sitting spread across a room for thirty, reading it out in whatever accents we could invent) it out so that we'd get a 'better understanding' (which is why I maintain Shakespeare shouldn't be part of the English high school curriculum, unless it is seen and the students are examined on that) of the play.

I didn't particularly hate it when I began, but, as per my usual school attitude, if I had to read it for school, it became a chore. However, by the end, Hound, I was involved with the text and quite enjoyed it. That's not to say I enjoyed reading a play, but I didn't hate it as I have others. Though this post isn't going to be anything about Hound, I do recommend it as something of a unique piece of work because it does things I've never seen in the crime fiction genre or in short plays.

So when I found out that Stoppard supposedly had an uncredited rewrite of Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith and Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade dialogue, and may even be writing the script for the next Bond film, I was quite surprised. What shocked me even more is that he is near-on seventy years old! Which means if he did have something to do with Star Wars, he would have been sixty-seven years old. Which got me thinking: just how tried-and-tested are the formulas that are making films these days? If a sixty-seven year old playwright, specialising in send-ups and satire, is called in to help on the dialogue on a Sci-Fi prequel film written for a 2005 audience (and, specifically, aimed at the Star Wars fans and the teenager-30s demographics), is too much praise and accolade being given to the writers and the like and not quite enough to the people who are actually bringing the film to life?

Thomas.

What a crock. And the worst part is no one can do jack about it.

And even if an administration could, they wouldn't, because of the amount of power the Asian cricket-playing nations wield. What the ICC should remember is that the world's two best teams are playing now, outside of Asia, and pulling more money. Also, they should note that three mediocre teams and a hobo-team in Bangladesh shouldn't don't deserve the power they have.

Thomas.

So what have I got up to today?

This.

This.

And this.

So the latter two are simply sites that let you compile online favourites list, but the first link is somewhat interesting for people with exessive amounts of free time or enjoy spreading themselves across the Internet. If anyone creates any lenses and wants to trade links or something, just drop me a line.

Thomas.

This is the best article about the current Ashes Series yet and pretty much sums things up to the t.

Linkage

Thomas.

I finally get up a serious piece of writing. I finally decide I'm going to try and do more serious things. I even went so far as to try but lo and behold, I get this in the inbox:

THE COCA COLA COMPANYPROMOTION/PRIZE AWARDDEPTCOCA COLA AVENUESTAMFORD BRIDGE LONDONSW1V 3DW UNITED KINGDOM

THE COCA COLA COMPANY OFFICAIL PRICE NOTIFICATION

We are pleased to inform you of the result of the just concluded annual final draws held on the (2nd July, 2006) by Coca-Cola in conjunction with the British American Tobacco Worldwide Promotion. Your email was among the 20 Lucky winners who won £850,000.00{Eight hundred and fifty thousand Great Britain Pounds} each in the THE COCA\COLA COMPANY 2006 PROMO.

However the results were released on 16th November, 2006 and your email was attached to ticket number (7PWYZ2006) and ballot number (BT:12052006/20) The online draws was conducted by a random selection of email addresses from an exclusive list of 29,031,643 E-mail addresses of individuals and corporate bodies picked by an advanced automated random computer search from the internet. However, no tickets were sold but all email addresses were assigned to different ticket numbers for representation and privacy. The selection process was carried out through random selection in our computerized email selection machine (TOPAZ) .This Lottery is approved by the British Gaming Board and also licensed by the The International Association of Gaming Regulators (IAGR).This lottery is the 3rd of its kind and we intend to sensitize the public.

Provide him with the information below:
1. NAME:
2. ADDRESS:
3. OCCUPATION:
4. AGE:
5. SEX:
6. NATIONALITY:
7. COUNTRY OF RESIDENCE:
8. TELEPHONE NUMBER:
9. FAX NUMBER:
10. Ticket Number
11. Ballot Number

To begin the claim processing of your prize you are to contact the fiduciary agent as stated below:

Mr Thomas Lampard
22 Garden Close, Stamford,
Lincs,PE9 2YP,London
United Kingdom

Email: cocacola_department04@yahoo.com

You are to keep all information away from the general public especially your ticket number and ballot number. (This is important as any case of double claims will not be entertained). *Staff of Coca-Cola and the British American Tobacco Company are not to partake in this PROMOTION.

Accept our hearty congratulations once again!

Yours faithfully,
Management

What a hum-dinger! It looks as though the scammers have relocated from Nigeria's Parliament House to, well, Stamford, London. Not exactly an upgrade, and the weather may make assimilation hard, but at least they are trying. And a real company, this is something new. In my previous endeavors, it was either a made-up country or a made-up relative of mine. But this time, obviously slapping on the name Coca-Cola is going to add to the creditability of the scam. Also, it might be noteworthy that there were actual Coca-Cola pictures attached to the top and bottom of the email - real classy.

I'm going to reply, oh yes, I certainly am. But it requires thought. Deep thought and planning. It's been so long since I've had replies from scammers that they are either wising up to the whole scamming of the scammer or I'm not convincing enough. That's why, I intend to get a reply this time by telling them how much I love their delicious and addictive product, how pleased I am that I have won and plead naïvity over my use of the Internet. I will throw so much bait in there, the whole sea will be jumping after the email too.

Thomas.

In an attempt to distance myself as far as I can from the stereotypical Australian 'macho' guy, I plan to reveal a movie that is one of my top five favourites of all time that generally wouldn't appear on the 'macho' list. In fact, I would go so far as to say that this movie only appears on the list of well-viewed movie goers, on a more sophisticated favourites lineup and not all that commonly viewed because of this.

Amelie.

There, I said it. And it doesn't seem to make me feel as red-faced as I would have thought. Perhaps because I am so enamored with this film that I don't care if I am judged because I like it. Because I am. This movie I love. I saw only a sliver of it when they played it on S.B.S. earlier on this year or last (my memory fails me), and was so compelled to see the movie in its entirety that I purchased the D.V.D. off the cuff, not knowing anything about it other than it was in French and it had the gorgeous Audrey Tautou in it (which is a selling point of any of her films).

The film, putting on my reviewers pants for a moment, is so simple in its plot, themes and ideas that it caters to all viewers. Yes, this is primarily a romance drama, but the filming techniques, the plot and ways in which it is developed, extrapolated upon and revealed to the audience is so cunning, so smart, that it left I, a traditionalist Hollywood-technique man, who (prior to the discovery of the films Amelie and Donnie Darko) appreciated limited (and now, I see, primitive) lighting, framing, angles and movement techniques that are employed and repeated in traditional American films.

Amelie is not a traditional American film. For starters, as stated, it's French. Enough said? No? Ok, the romance doesn't rely on nudity. Now, look, this is a difficult topic, I know. On one hand, it's nudity; everyone's friend. On the other hand, it is my opinion that nudity generally detracts from a film's worth unless its is done so in an artistic and somewhat 'sensuous' way. A lot of Hollywood films have nudity that neither accentuates love plots, nor does it even play upon the idea of lust that is present in many Indy films that use it in this manor. Hollywood simply throws it in to get the viewers in to see *insert actress's name here*'s tits. And really, let's face it, if you're in the demographic they are targeting at, in a majority of times, you know about this, and may even be guilty of indulging in a mediocre movie just to see said nudity. Do I judge? For the sake of this post, I'm going to say no.

Ok, getting away from talking about movies that include nudity to either eventuate their plot or for no reason at all, Amelie is a film that employs none of this. It has the basic principles of a romantic plot, but is so intricate in it's playing out (which effectively establishes the same kind of intricate love that Amelie and Nino share with one another) that it's like burning the wick of a firework - you know that the wick is going to burn, and at the end, there is going to be an explosion (of released emotions in this case), but how many times you're going to have to re-light the wick, because something has put it out, is up in the air.

With this example in mind, as well as the exclusion of nudity, you may very well ask how are the massive amount of emotions, the quantity of love and the multiple journeys through the story all conveyed to the audience? The answer: a variety of very modern, up-to-date and effective story telling techniques (which, coming to the end of this post, may actually be seen as not so modern). Immediately the audience realises that this film is to be narrated, and, for the opening eight minutes or so, the only dialogue we hear is that of the narrator. After the eleventh minute though, a bridge is formed between the film and the omniscient narrator who gives us an abridged history of this connection. The bridge is, of course, Amelie. Strangely enough though, she begins to interact with the narrator, which break sdown the wall between the audience and the film's characters, and the narrator and the film's characters. Such is the first important role of the narrator: to connect the audience and the film in a relationship that isn't as commonly found in Hollywood, as the idea of using a narrator has slowly fallen out of fashion for some reason.

The second role for the narrator is to foreshadow events in the film and give the audience prior knowledge and information that the characters, in particular Amelie, have no real grasp of. However, this information turns out to be somewhat deceptive and, as a result, the audience comes to realise, at the point where the knowledge becomes relevant and known within the film, that they don't know as much as they thought they did, and begin to question what the narrator says from this point in, but, as a result of the audience questioning themselves, also rely upon him more. This creates another unique relationship in a film filled with them, and it is certainly not the last.

In fact, uniqueness is possibly the defining characteristic of Amelie. From production values, the the script, to the acting, to the themes and plots - the film is unique. If the film isn't employing less-common means, it is using the 'traditional' means in new methods and scenarios. And all this, of course, is emphasised by the fact us English-speaking viewers relying on subtitles. How is this so? Well, firstly, the variety of means we have in the film, and the way they are employed are (no pun intended) foreign to us. They are new, and they are a breath of fresh air (all of which is expanded upon later). Secondly, here is how I have come to view the situation of the acting: because we cannot understand the actor's dialogue, we aren't focusing on what the actors are saying, less, we are always looking at what they are doing instead. So we pick up on what we normally would expect to see, but, because we don't have to devote anything to listening to them, we can focus on the subtleties that the actors bring to their performance. And such are the subtleties of Audrey Tautou's acting abilities that it spears the film into the audience's mind and thoughts, and resides there long after the end.

I would say that Tautou carries this film on the back of her own abilities, however, there isn't much to carry in the end. All of her supporting cast holds their own. I expect it's unlikely that I will see any of them in subsequent films, however, I certainly wouldn't be adverse to watching a film of theirs, as my 'deviation' away from the 'subtitled' genre has been vanquished with this film. Does it mean I am now a compulsory viewer of the foreign films? Far from. I still prefer to watch movies that are in my native language (English, that is, not Australian), and I am hardly going to turn my back on true classics that Hollywood has produced and have found way onto my favourites list. But now I'm not so hesitant to watch a foreign film.

Which leads into my next point: because this is a foreign film, perhaps it is so resounding and so good because it takes a view of the movie-making process, the meaning of film and purpose of the celluloid that isn't common nor seen in the 'Hollywood-world' of movie-making. By bringing these new views to the 'Hollywood-world', it's not impossible that it acts as a breath of fresh air for the done-and-tried audiences. Additionally, it's likely that directors and producers from France (in this case) 'learn things' differently: the methods of production and the means of conveyance. They may 'see' things in a way that a disciple of Hollywood doesn't: whether it's simpler or more complex, that that have learned more or less (overall or in certain topics) - each of these things contribute to the difference.

It's this difference that, I feel, is one of the main contributing factors making Amelie truly fantastic. And the difference works with the techniques, works with the uniqueness, works with the relationships, it works with the influences that a foreign films brings to the screen to make this a modern classic. And because I hold it in such high regard as a great piece of film-making, I also feel that it is extremely neglected among audiences and critics. It does have a borderline basic plot, but it's simplicity is key in developing the simple topics that it deals with: unique relationships, basic love and and true, but modern, romance and courtship. But without the deep character development that is undertaken, very little of this would be achieved. While production values can be off-the-chart in terms of effectiveness, actually wanting to empathise, feel, relate, hate or despise a character in the ways the film wants you to falls squarely on the character development. Needless for me to say, the character development has enough depth for the audience to see these characters live their lives for the moment. If anything, the depth is so much that the minor characters, the ones who are there for single purposes rather than fulfilling a major role in the film, leave the audience with thoughts that they didn't have adequate screen time and were under-appreciated in their use and purpose. What was the last Hollywood blockbuster that left you with those sorts of thoughts? What was the last Hollywood film that you felt had supporting characters developed just as much as the main characters? You might be able to name some, but it would be an underwhelming number.

How the character development is perfected, and we return to him, is through the narrator. In the opening sequences we are let into private, almost intimate, details that, while they seem trivial and unimportant, actually explain a lot of the actions that the characters undertake. It also opens a window into the psychological and emotional state that the characters are living in at the moment of time we are visiting them. Further, after explaining and showing, it forms the relationship between the audience and the characters in such a simple and basic way. But the relationship isn't basic; it is somewhat complex, and certainly unique. The narrator's role of 'introducing' the characters to us, and beginning the relationships, is only developed further and made more concrete through the (strangely) traditional means that you would typically find in pre-80s Hollywood films. Does this film, thus, not only go against modern Hollywood conventions, but evoke long-forgotten traditions from the 'Golden Era' of Hollywood? Possibly, and it might be worth looking into, however I feel that rather than intentionally doing this, Jean-Pierre Jeunet (the director) has chosen the most effective, the most simple, and the most basic techniques of story telling to get his image and idea across, and combined with his native learnings, creates, again, a unique and original film.

So, if you're someone who is easily swayed by a wanna-be reviewer, then hopefully I've done enough of a job to make you go out and see this fine film. Then again, if you hate people who think they can review a film and pass it off as good, and want to try and see how wrong I truly am, here's the answer: go and see the film. Either way, it's a win-win situation: you get to see the film, and when you come back saying just how good Amelie really is, I win. And even if you don't like the premise of the film, or romantic plots and themes, at least you will have been exposed to a masterfully created technical film, and it would be hard to not appreciate, or even acknowledge, this. Although I do find it difficult to believe that someone could possibly find this movie bad at all.

Thomas.

Moon base from 2020? That's ... well, interesting to say the least. It's the stuff of Sci-Fi, sure, but so have a lot of things that have come to pass as of late. So should this idea be thrown onto the heap that includes eugenics, the Y2K bug and Atlantis or put on the desk alongside photos of Dolly the sheep, computers that fit in your hand and face transplants?

Well I, for one, hope they do try for something like this. I hear a lot of people going ape about these sorts of investments by governments while there are millions living in poverty, at home and abroad. But, here's the thing: money can only go so far in these situations. It requires, in some cases, physical presence to enforce advancement in some regions, otherwise known as military intervention. And on the domestic front, well, in a capitalist country, having the government plunge money into the economy can have detrimental effects. So with the surplus of money, why not just throw it to the moon. It's not like we could throw it much further.

Thomas.

And there goes Bolton. It's unlikely you're going to keep your job anyway when moderates from your own party don't even want you, much less when you're running in an opposition-majority Senate.

Thomas.

I said a while ago, before the leadership challenge was even a whisper, that I'd vote for a Labor Party if Kevin Rudd were at the helm. It was a safe bet: I liked Rudd, but I didn't see a prospect of him being leader too soon, after he shot down a leadership challenge last year and Howard was ahead in majority of the poles.

Well, waking up nice and early today to watch the cricket and get my hands on the first snippet of information about the caucus vote, I wondered if I'd still be voting for a Rudd Labor. I thought about whether the I.R. reforms were that important to me at the moment, my stance on environmental issues, on nuclear power, on stem-cell research, on our foreign policies and everything else that's going to be an issue come the next federal election. Would I swap (what I had usually thought) my traditionally preferred political party for their rival?

Well, while I support the increase in use of nuclear power, I also feel there should be more done with the environment. I.R. reforms I just have no opinion of, but I can see that there are holes that can be exploited, and I'm not keen on that. I'm an adamant supporter of stem-cell research. And, of course, our foreign policy has sucked as of late, leading to an increased threat of terrorist attacks, a multitude of options for the current government to exploit the fear of people, and irreconcilably tarnished our international image.

The only thing that pulls me back to the Liberals are their successful economic credentials Costello seems to have (though I have heard the argument that he inherited a healthy economy, and even a monkey could have done what he did, though I don't subscribe to it). But with all of the Labor positions up for grabs, and a possibility of Gillard taking the economic portfolio, I'm prepared to jump to the Labor side of things.

Come election time, I expect to hear the call 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'. The only problem is, sure, Australia isn't broken per se, but it's starting to go on the blink (depending who you ask, of course). So do you let it go until it's broken or give things a shake-up and a new perspective?

Thomas.

So today I spent some time editing 50 of my posts replacing the name Clayton Northcutt out and replacing it with my real name of Thomas. It's no big surprise, really, that Clayton Northcutt is an alias - it's quite an absurd name, as people have probably noticed, which is why I probably like it. I shan't expect anyone is surprised that I was using an alias, one would only need to do a few clicks to discover. Therefore, to create unity (and possibly in some sort of attempt to 'personalise' this blog as my own, thus giving myself more ideas to write about) across my Internet interests, I will use Thomas across the board.

Not really worth a blog post on it's own, just thought I would make it clear in case you thought you were in some bizarro world where Clayton Northcutt had disappeared.

Thomas.

If you you've been watching Channel 9 as of late (in particular, the cricket), you may be aware that there is a new movie out called Casino Royale. That's if you've caught one of the ten million ads they have been playing between the overs.

What a joke professional sports has become in recent times. It's all about dollars and cents. It's all I've known in my life, and in recent times, it has even made me sick. I wouldn't be able to bear it if I were someone from the second generation before mine, when sports persons had to have a job as well as compete to make a living. And they weren't competing for cash, they were competing for the country. What happened to that?

I can already hear people saying that they still are. Well, I beg to differ. Shane Warne, in his chase for more cash, now plays overseas in the English county competition, rather than doing something back here, in his home country. It's nothing new, many cricketers have done this over time. I'm not singling Warne out because he is an easy target - they are all as guilty as he. Rather than doing something to help promote the sport of cricket in Australia, such as playing in our domestic competition when he can, acting in coaching clinics or starting grassroots programs, they all chase the dosh and head over to the U.K.. Absolutely disgusting and disappointing.

And the amount of sponsorship crap we, the viewers, are forced to endure on T.V. for some mediocre cricket at times is even worse! Damned channel 9 slip ads in whenever they can. Am I glad that they are bringing the cricket to my homes? Yes. But would I just as quickly turn on a radio to listen (and, for that point, listen to more interesting people and their commentary) to the cricket if the advertising got out-of-hand: damn straight, and proven, because I did it for the fourth day of the recently completed test. I even found myself getting live updates on the computer, instead of watching the entire day's play, and when something interesting happened, would switch the T.V. on to watch what had just happened, knowing full well that I would likely have to endure a bunch of ads as the milked the cash and showed me some more ads before I saw any sort of replay.

Instead of seeing sports as a cash cow, the organisers and programmers should to show some form of audience loyalty. I mean, it's not like we don't see enough ads during prime time programming, in the early morning shows, at late night - throughout the entire day! And don't anyone tell me this is why pay T.V. should have all sports because I've watched pay T.V. enough to realise that they too have a ridiculous amount of ads (in regards to you having to pay to watch the shows as well).

Everything is quickly becoming commercialised, and hardly anyone seems to be saying something about it. Even S.B.S. is getting in on the act too, and they are unbearable between shows, as that's when most of their ads appear because they haven't taken to cutting up their entire line-up to slot ads in (though that's not to say they haven't started).

Just leave my sports alone, please. Let me enjoy them, rather than endure them.

Thomas.

Apparently I show off (I know, I was surprised too!). I was accused during a diner in the past week. The strange thing was, I wasn't even showing off when I was accused of being such a person. I generally brag about things that set me above-and-beyond other people because, hell, I've done it/got it/been there/done that etc., but this time I was accused of showing off by making simple conversation.

Therefore, this entire post, to live up to the accuser's idea that I am a show-off, is going to be dedicated to just that, acting the show-off.

- My passport is nearly running out of pages to stamp, and come March, it will be full. Yes, I'm a frequent traveler. I have traveled to more foreign countries than I have pithy states in my home country. Let's look shall we:

- Australia:
- New South Wales
- South Australia
- Queensland
- Canberra

- Rest of the World
- The United States of America
- Singapore
- France
- Italy
- Switzerland
- England
- Scotland
- Turkey (Feb '07)
- Poland (Feb '07)
- China (Feb '07)

- Now, to brag even more, here are landmarks and places of interest I've been to:
- L.A.
- Disney World
- Miami Beach
- Had breakfast with orangutans at Singapore Zoo
- Eiffel Tower
- The Louvre (before it was conspiracy hot-spot), where I saw the Mona Lisa (the size of a post stamp indeed)
- Venice
- The Rialto Bridge
- Florence
- The Duomo
- Michaelangelo's David
- The Pontevecchio
- Rome
- The Forums
- The Colosseum
- The Vatican (yes, I know, technically its own country, but I saw it when I went to Rome)
- Lake Como
- The Chunnel Tunnel
- Went to three days of The Lords (yes, you read it right, the home of cricket: Lords) Test in the '02/'03 Ashes Tour
- London
- Trafalgar Square
- The Changing of the Guard
- Big Ben
- Westminster Abbey
- Houses of Parliament
- Birmingham Palace
- Loch Ness

- For all these flights, gallivanting around the world, I have flown more Business Class flights than 'Cattle Class'/Economy Class. Now, for the people 'in the know', there is this section called The Bubble. It's located directly behind the cockpit. If you were ever a kid and went up to see the captain, and had to go up a flight of stairs, and you saw a bunch of elitist snobs doing their thing? Well, that would have been me. There are four, count them, four hostesses catering to twelve, count them, twelve passengers. A ratio of one-to-three: insane. It's something like one-to-a thousand downstairs, near the cans. I've traveled in The Bubble quite a few times. Quite a few times: me in The Bubble. Just wanted to reinforce this.

- I have never stayed in a motel/hotel/accommodation that is less than three stars, and that three star place was a one-and-only occurrence. Everything else has been four stars.

- I have never paid for a flight ... ever. It's not because my parents took the family overseas the first few times. No, I have just tree words: frequent flier miles. My family never pays for flights, anywhere. My father's occupation means that the points keep rolling in: enough to give away free flights to anyone who turns 21 in our family, enough to give his son and grandfather free flights to Europe and back, enough to be able to take a major overseas holiday every five years. I enjoy saying free flights.

- I'm going on another holiday. Another holiday. I'm leaving this island for a third time, and then, in all likelihood, leaving it again in '08. Why? Because I can and because traveling is the greatest thing you can possibly spend your money on. Anyone who neglects to travel is a failure.

Do note, anyone who has bothered reading this, that I haven't even mentioned the point that saw me being called a show-off. What that point was, is that I have a running bet with my father that I can eat more gelatos than he. He was there for a month and at 46 different flavours. I have a little over a week to beat that. I was merely discussing this wager with my friend when I was accused of being a show-off.

It looks as though I don't even have to try to be classified as something undesirable anymore. Fantastic! My mission is nearly complete. Only when I don't need to say anything in order for me to get branded will I be fully satisfied with myself. It will save a hell of a lot of breathing, effort and time, won't it? And I won't have to bother writing blogs about important issues (that's not to say I already am), because my opinion on things will already be known.

Clayton Northcutt.

Here is a little known fact: there was recently discovered another constant in the universe, which transcends the differences of theories which, after being studied, could significantly contribute to our understanding of the creation, development and future of the universe.

That constant is that I am always right.

The mathematical formula is as follows:

[Thomas's Opinion] +/- ([Evidence] x [Time]) = Correct

Now, some rather alarming things to result from this finding were as follows:

- This formula only works for me. I believe it is a combination of superior genes, the amount of Vanilla Coke ingested over the 'ego development' stage (nothing to do with Freud, purely the part of my life where my ego went from normal to abnormal), chewing pencils and being the greatest 18 Cup holder of all time. Also, because of the nature of the formula, only one person can possibly be correct all of the time, therefore it is me, because I believe I am right all the time, and because I am right all the time, that is the truth.
- The presence or lack of evidence is remarkable in it's scientific properties to prove my correctness. It acts as a balance of sorts, correcting the level of opinion, after being multiplied by time, to bring about absolute correctness. Thus, while evidence present will bring up the validity of my opinion, not having it will do the same job.
- In the case of evidence as well, if it ever comes about that my opinion appears to be proven wrong, it is, in fact, incorrect to assume that, as either the evidence I relied on was wrong (which, because it may very well not be written by me, there may be a distinct possibility of that) or you are really wrong, not right, therefore I am right, and not wrong.

Now this formula can be applied in a range of scenarios. An example is given below:

Person: I don't agree that you are correct all the time.
Thomas: It is my opinion that you are wrong. Because my opinion is always right, you are wrong, and because you are wrong, I am right, as the only other option to not being right all of the time is being right all of the time, and your opinion is wrong, and thus, I am right.

Endeavor to use this scientifically (in the sense that it is my opinion that it is right, and thus must be) proven formula in all cases, but be careful - there will be people who don't agree with me being right all the time, and thus, do not rely on my opinion just yet until it is accepted in the academic community (what I'm trying to say is don't say, in an essay or anything, "Thomas says this is right, thus it is true" because you will likely fail through jealousy of the maker, and not me being wrong).

Don't be fooled by the people who say the formula is wrong, it is only an act of jealousy that they aren't right as many times as me (that is, all of the time). I mean, how can I be wrong? I'm Thomas! I write on a frigging blog for Christ's sake! If I write on a blog, doesn't that prove my supremacy? Just take a look at any other blog that passes out judgment and opinion, and watch as they believe they are always right. Well, I don't believe I am always right, I know it. It's my blog, a blog which covers my opinion, and because it is always right, my blog is always right, and thus I am right because I write a blog that is always right. Get it?

Thomas.

My world came crashing down one-hundred and nine hours ago (approximately). What event could have caused a catastrophe? My Internet died. Yes, I was without access to, in reality, my life, for an excess of four days! Trust me, I was going insane fast.

The disappointing thing is I ended up walking aimlessly around my house, a hollow shell of my former self. If I had a resounding thought, I would have to ... handwrite it. If I wanted to speak to someone I would have to ... actually speak to them. I had to acknowledge my family, prior to now known as "those other people who live in the house". I felt removed from the word: with no snail-mail to replace my email, I felt under-appreciated and unacknowledged. My spine began to reform into its natural shape, rather than the twisted, contorted and bent posture it is begin to return to.

Truly I was lost. But now am found - found by a bearded man on a contract from Telstra. He is the messiah and he will lead me to the promised land.

Thomas.

Well, it starts again. I received an email from a one Henry Coleman (two actually, but I suppose his automated email sender has a glitch). Here follows:

Dear Friend,

I know this email will come to you in an odd manner as you have not received any prior communication from me before now.

But be that as it may, my name is Mr. Henry Coleman and I was privileged to be the account officer of my deceased client who lost his life sometime ago.

In the process of review of the financial report by my bank, I discovered that both of you have a similar last name, hence I contacted you so that I can give you further briefing on my intention and how to disburse the estate he left behind.

I will most acknowledge your prompt response as that would enable us to start something immediately.

Sincerely,

Henry Coleman.

Who am I to refuse this seemingly honest man his offer to give me money. But how much money? And are we dealing with the same person? Well, I thought we should set the record straight:

Dear Buddy,

Thank-you for contacting me in regards to this issue.

If your deceased client's name is similar to mine, I believe we will be in business. You must be quite an able research to discover my surname as I don't generally publish or reveal it. However, if you have managed to find someone else with the rare surname of Northcutt, as stated, we may have things to discuss.

My family has, in fact, recently lost a family member, and thus, I don't believe this to be a coincidence or a mistake, what with the matching surnames and all. It was Randal J. Northcutt, who lived in Hong Kong due to his card-carrying status of the Australian Communist Party. He felt that because he could never be Chinese, he shouldn't join the Chinese Communist Party, but instead his own nation's one. Also, he couldn't un-join as he was the last member, and there would be no one to witness the procedures. If this sounds like your client, then I have no doubt that we should be talking.

Could you please inform me as to the size of Randal's estate to see if it is worth the hassle of doing business, i.e. I don't particularly have time to arrange the transaction of 50 Ethopian goat (as that is where most of his business was done, Ethopia, due to the cheap cost of land, labour and life). I am a slightly busy man, what with my position as Executive Officer of Outlet EDF23 for the Matsushita Semiconductor Company, unprofessional blogger and professional 'do-nothing' (also known as a uni student).

My regards,

Thomas.

Now I sit and hope that I get a reply. This looks like another Mr. Kian. Quite ironic too that I was quoted as someone who has fun with scammers on a blog, and I get another email from them.

Thomas.

Now, being a 'loyal' reader of the blog New Lines From A Floating Life, I have managed to keep tabs on, though in no way attempt to partake in, an online argument/disagreement/tiff between two bloggers, on the author of said blog and the author of Seeking Utopia.

Now I sat back and cried at the somewhat childish/playground happenings, as it severely lowered my benchmark for certain peoples. Then again, I cannot really blame at least one party, as they are not a 'product' (as I like to call it, though lay no claim to originating the dubious definition) of the technology age, in fact, they are at least a generation removed guessing by photos (and good on him for not shielding away from the 'scary' technological world). However, it is quite sad to watch an online argument play-out, as, after going through my phase of seeking out Net-guments, and having fun with them (in reality, I was enjoying the activity of aggravating and pissing off people more than anything), I have come to live by the motto:

In an online argument, nobody wins.*

And, once again, nobody wins in the, what appears to be now, mud-slinging (not all that different to what is happening in the N.S.W. Parliament) from one side to besmirch others.

With that being said, I'm going act the hypocrite I actually am (and pride myself on being for some reason) and weigh in on this debate. In this post, one assumes that the brunt of these accusations about a "boring blog" are directed at this man and this blog (due note, author I am referencing, that if I have wrongly interpreted your writings, I will be happy to amend the post you read with a formal apology**). Now, I found it hard to comprehend point one (which probably, no, actually lead to me laughing at this post, and not being able to take the rest of it seriously, as I expect the author intended), in that, and I quote:

1. Does the blog author write his or her own material (as I do) or is each post filled with links to other people's work and ideas? Such a person either can't write or lacks the talent to be original! Or, most likely, both!

Hmmm. Well, last time I checked, though I may be wrong, as it was, oh, a couple of weeks ago, and you know how times are a' changing, but when you write a piece (any piece) you try to SOURCE what you can to back said piece. If you are writing some sort of prose, you include sources to support your statements. If you are writing an opinion piece, you include sources that support your opinion. Now, please dear readers, email me, leave comments, write me, tell me face-to-face if I am wrong, and I will alter my thoughts and posts***. However, I don't feel I am wrong in thinking that you need sources to support your claims, and thus, you are wrong, author of Seeking Utopia. Dead wrong. But, then again, most people are wrong when it comes to a difference of any sort with me, and if I ever might be wrong, I'm not, it is merely someone else who told me the wrong facts that is wrong, and you are certainly not right.

Ok, so, please, have a perusal of the 'characteristics' that make a blog boring, and do note that I managed to fulfill 1 (by linking to author profiles and blogs, and sourcing my facts), 2 (because I don't use titles, nor do I use pictures on my blog (not, for example, my DeviantArt account, which is specifically for images, and not my blog entries. If you want pictures, Google Image Search is very able, though be careful of images of the 'adulterous' nature, or not beware if that is what you are looking for (I don't judge)). Whoops, there's three more links!), 3 (I perceive this as an attack on the lacking morals, maturity and nature of this author (another link!)), 4 (I only receive comments from, shock and awe, my readers, which make up "a small, local group" when compared to the totality of Internet usage), 5 (I believe I am using this blog to push my own agenda, as is any other bogger. Now, it may very well happen that a collective of bloggers, also known as a blogette****, share similar agendas, but their blogs are still pushing their agenda), 6 (Oh hell yes! I like to imagine I've received an above average education, but reminiscing on my days at school, what with my bludging and some of my teachers, I can't say received above average. Also, I believe I use "semantic tricks" when debating as, well, because all we have is God-damned WORDS, what you don't say and what you do is likely to be of importance numb-skull! Thus, pointing out that, say, when you try and name all the primary colours and you say "They are red, blue and not red or blue" you aren't saying yellow, and, therefore, omitted the specific colour of yellow, thus proving lack of knowledge) 7 (I have zip-all comments, don't boast in writing, but have a counter at the very bottom of my page, and thus am obviously trying to make out this blog to be something that it isn't. God forbid I want this to be something, like, I don't know, a place to write, and tell people that it's a place to write) 8 (The actual phrasing of this passage is unclear, and because I use comment moderation, and I saw that question in there, I feel that my blog is even more boring as a result, not that I care though, and I will come to this later ... well, now).

Frankly, because I broke all the 'rules' as to what a boring blog is, I still don't give two tosses, left, right, forwards or back, as to whether my blog is perceived as:

a) Boring
b) Interesting

Do you know why? Because I'm not bloody writing this blog for someone else, or to get a fan-base or to get paid. I am writing it because every now-and-then I want to write, and because there is no Write Whatever The Fuck You Want 1001 at Sydney University (although I sometimes have questions as to whether this is really called Sociology at uni). And in sum, I don't care if people find my blog overly-interesting or overly-boring. If people do enjoy it, great. If people don't, I have no ill feelings, or suffer any emotional state that is worse than what it was if I didn't know altogether.

On a side note (other than the fact that this author professes to be a professional thinker, which seems to be negated by his unprofessional thinking in this post), I would have posted this as a shorter, condensed and to-the-point comment on Seeking Utopia, but I couldn't actually find a way to post comments, which I suppose makes Seeking Utopia a boring blog, as well as laughable and, well, ridiculous, not to mention the home to someone who probably thinks girls have cooties and children arrive from the stalk, such is the naivety of the author in question. There may have been a way to post comments, but in this age of simplicity and ease, because it would have required me doing research of my own (another factor that makes this blog boring, because researching to find a source is supposedly forbidden) I couldn't be fucked trying. Which generally sums up my experience with Seeking Utopia: I couldn't be fucked trying to read through anything past the first post from here on in.

Thomas.

Now for my poor-man's footnotes:
* - Nobody wins, unless you're Thomas, then you win automatically because, as is well known, I'm always right.
** - No I won't. That was a lie, just like this author's post about characteristics to define a boring blog. It is biased, subjective and pathetic. But, if this person can lie, and think he can get away with it, so can I; the only difference is, I don't think I'm going to get away with it.
*** - Yeah, nah, that won't be happening either. After all, I'm right, you're wrong and England prevails! Wait, that's a line from the movie V For Vendetta.
**** - I just, to the best of my knowledge (which means I really did just, because I'm right), made that up.

What's the go with the weather as of late? Rain in Sydney, bush-fires out West, snow in the north, drought ....

What next?

I'll tell you what next: the God-damned Four Horsemen! Hell, two of them are already here (Red horse = war, black horse = famine). And if you don't believe me, you just wait till the sun turns black and the moon blood-red.

Ok, no joke, I just wrote that and there was a loud clap of thunder and the rain just started to bucket down.

Perhaps I'll end this post here ...

(And making fun of the Bible seemed like a good idea)

Thomas.

It's very rare that I recommend a book to people (animals, on the other hand, not so rare), because, well, I don't particularly enjoy reading, because most things I am meant to read are supposedly "compulsory", thus I steer away from reading altogether (probably my form of rebellion, or a pathetic attempt at 'sticking it to the system', who knows).

But I have stumbled upon a must read for anyone who enjoys the following:

- Irony
- Satire
- Poking fun at Americans
- Blogs
- Charles Firth

Yes, Charles Firth, the same man from CNNNN, The Chaser Decides and The Chaser's War On Everything. Quite the comedian and impersonator. And now, author. American Hoax is one of, if not, the best political/comedy/sociological book I have ever read.

In short, Firth invents and acts as four Internet persona, from different socio-economic classes and political affiliation, all Americans, and tries to get a shoe-in with the current pundit/political opinion scene. The best part is the success he finds and the surprisingly easy path he walks (for certain characters) to said success.

Go and get it. American Hoax.

Thomas.

Here is why I think being afraid of the dark is really being afraid of yourself.

Everyone knows that (most) people have an irrational fear of the dark. They are afraid of 'things' that aren't really there. But how did those things, that don't actually exist there and then, actually come to be there? Imagination. A person has to imagine up the fear-source and place it in their context (whether it be their bedroom, out in the open, where ever) for there to be something to be afraid of. Thus, it stands to reason, that a person is merely fearing their own imagination if, in fact, there is no actual object to fear.

Now imagination is one of man's (and yes I proudly use the un-P.C. term) defining characteristics for all we know. It is hard to see (though, granted, also hard to prove) examples of creatures in the wild using an imagination. You don't see zebras playing 'lion and zebra' or a crocodile playing 'fish'. And you also don't see animals displaying an overabundance of fear at non-existing objects. You see them fear other animals, but that is generally only in their presence, or habitat, where they are likely to be found. Otherwise you would see very few animals as they would be hiding all day long.

As humans, we use our imagination for a variety of reasons, least of which I am going to put here, but suffice to say without it, we may very well not get by. Now if we ourselves are imagining up these fear-sources out of our own perceived experiences, and not, for example, from actual experiences, then it is quite easy to say that a we are imagining our own fear, and thus, we are the course of our own fear, and therefore, we are fearing ourselves, because there really is nothing to fear.

I make the emphasis on perception above because, given, someone who has experienced a traumatic event, and are afraid of the culprit/fear-source returning to continue said traumatic event, there is an actual fear-source, though likely not present. But perception is important in the rest of the cases. Who has actually physically 'experienced' the Boogieman? Seen him? Actually know what he does? I still don't know the answers to those last two question, though, ignorantly, I haven't actually given much thought to Mr. B-man as of late, which is surprising given the amount of time I spent in trains, train stations and lesson breaks last semester. But suffice to say, fear of the dark, which is generally transferred to fear of a monster or something like that, is only being afraid of what you can think/imagine what is in your closet, under your bed, etc.

Now, as I said, if you are afraid of what you are imagining into existence, then no doubt, you are afraid of the product of your own mind. It is also accepted than no two persons learn or think alike, and if this is the case, then each person is creating an individual product from their mind, though applying the generic label created within society to this product, i.e. Boogieman. Thus, people are afraid of the thought processes going on in their own head, and ultimately, afraid of their own mind for what it can potentially, and eventually, does imagine is in the closet or under the bed.

Now, if this scenario is suffice for you, what is to say this fearing one's self cannot be extended into the world of light, where the only a major fear is a bombing, a terrorist attack, and the like, for people out there. The vast majority of people haven't physically experienced a terrorist attack, but they have perceived that they have. The amount of times 9/11 images were shown to the world, the way it is commemorated every year, the way it is talked about at least once a month, the way it is the 'image of terrorism' for the world; the amount of times the Bali bombings is talked about here, the amount of times it was shown over here, the importance it now has become to Australian society, the continued 'travel advice' we receive; the references to the London Underground bombings across the world, the media ready to publish reports of how it could happen here, or in America, or anywhere, the continuous ramming home that it was home-grown terrorism, that the attack was carried out by 'average' Englishmen; all of these things give us, the public, the customers of mass media, the customers of politicians, the customers of fear, are duped into believed we have physically experienced the attacks, rather than viewers of.

This perception is further played up and drawn on by the likes of the politicians, who use it to their own agendas (elect/pay/sign away liberties/ignore me), the likes of the media, who use fear these days as an advertisement to get us to watch a show like Border Security (and trying to get people to believe in the 'other's' stereotypical identity, and reaffirming our views that we shouldn't trust anyone except who we are told to), the likes of the people with their own, personal agendas (racists/homophobics/fundamentalists/extreme lefties/extreme righties), who exploit the fear the most in that they are ready to attribute blame to people who did and did not have anything to do with the fear-source.

Now because majority of people haven't physically experienced a terrorist attack, though fear on anyway, through perception of experience, they are imagining what could happen. While it is accepted that there is a healthy amount of fear, fear something like a terrorist attack anywhere, any time could, and possibly does, lead to an unhealthy amount of fear. I don't mean fearing it so much that you don't leave you suburban home because terrorist attacks happen only in high-density population areas, I'm talking about fearing a terrorist attack so much you are prepared to prejudice a sect of people because of your fear. "Be alert, not alarmed" might sound like a good slogan for a political campaign (the fear that this campaign created will inevitably, and has already, be used to political gain), but how "alert' should/can one be before it is too alert? And how afraid does one have to be to single out entire groups/nationalities/religions as a fear-source? And how long will it be allowed for society to label their imagined fear source with labels created in society?

Thomas.

Na na na na!

Na na na na!

Hey! Hey! Hey!

Goodbye!

So pretty boy Trescothick is headed home. Stress-related problems he says? He just can't hack it! That's right! He can't hack it. It can't deal with the knowledge that the Aussies are going to walk all over the Poms, take back our urn and have a massive party, a la like theirs.

No streamers and confetti and fans at Trafalgar Square this time son. No thinking you're now the world's best team because you cheated (yes I said it, cheated) your way to a hairline finish last time, then pulled up with one series win between then and now (and against Pakistan in England! How easy do you want it?).

You just make sure you rearrange the trophy cabinet to cover up where The Ashes could have been.

Thomas.

You know what I'm sick of? Hearing about 'Australian' values. Point blank: they don't exist. How can there ever be an 'Australian' value? It implies that we have values that simply do not exist in the rest of the world, which in itself is an insult to, yes, the rest of the world. And what gets me even more pissed off is how 'Australian' values are used by every which politician in every which scenario.

But if, for a moment, we were to accept that there was such a thing as 'Australian' values, I have a question: what the hell are they!? I am yet to see someone, anyone, sit down and write them out, define them in context or out of, even give me so much as a whiff of definition. I know what values are, but I don't (and I suspect that nobody else does) have any idea what values are uniquely Australian; because that is what 'Australian' values implies. The term implies that there are values that us Australians hold that cannot be found outside of, you guessed it, Australia.

Don't worry, I'm not pinning this ridiculous term on Australia only, I've heard of 'American' values, 'British' values, 'Christian' values, 'Muslim' values, pretty much every kind. And out of the hundreds that are out there, there is really one that has some creditability and substance: 'Western' values. Please do note the emphasis on the some previously. Other than that, I consider every term null and void on the basis that once one value can be seen outside of the *insert context here* values, then it not only undermines the idea that the context has unique values, but it also proves that Billy Ban Jo down in Wagga Wagga, if he holds the 'Australian' values, which, by being an Australian he does by it's very name and nature, then he is likely to have some of the same values as Redneck Jim in Texas and Jihad Bob in downtown Baghdad, which defeats the purpose of the term 'Australian' values.

Now I don't want to hear that 'Australian' values are a certain collection of values: a hand-picked crop from the world's values, because it isn't. Take a stamp collection. Sure, Billy's stamp collection is Billy's, but it is still a stamp collection no matter which way you look at it, and it differs from Jim's and Bob's in only as much as he may have some different stamps. So Billy, the individual, owns his stamps, just as Jim and Bob. And Billy may own some of the same stamps as Jim and as Bob, but he may have other ones that the other two don't. That's the whole point! Now lets say that Jim moved to Adelaide (good luck staying awake), and brought his stamp collection here and got Australian citizenship: he is now an Australian, he is still the owner of his stamp collection, but now he might find that some of his rare stamps aren't rare here, and some of his common stamps are now rare. But it's still his stamp set, right? Well look at it in terms of values: while his "we are responsible for the environment" value was a rarity in Texas, now it's common. In reverse, while his "racist" values were common in Texas, they aren't in Adelaide.

That's how easy things can change for a person's values in context. Any Australian knows about the issue of immigration: look how many people, thus, are immigrating/seeking refuge/etc. here with their pre-existing values! Now should they be forced to change? This is a tough question to answer. Some people, I suspect most people, will say "yes" for the values that are totally unacceptable, and I would agree with them. There are values that are not acceptable. Do note, though, that I didn't say "there are values that are not acceptable in Australia". This is the crux of the matter: there are values that should be renounced the world over, and there are values that should be embraced in every corner of the globe. There is nothing that makes Australia unique in terms of values!

I also have an additional question for those people that say "yes" to the above question, and it is one that I just cannot answer: if they (people immigrating etc.) are to change the values when coming to us, do we have any right or standing to change the values of other countries when going to them, a la the Iraq/Afghanistan War and spreading 'Western' values? A la the spread of capitalism over the past 150 years? A la the expansion of foreign mass media, originating from the 'West'? These are some heavy questions, and while it may be easy to say "yes, we have the right" for some of those scenarios, there are some, and others, that all the signs point to "no", but we have been conditioned and 'cloned' into thinking "yes".

And thus I reinforce my point: the individuality of context. If you agree with my sentiments from the above paragraph, that there are extenuating circumstances on both ends of the spectrum and there are cases where we have had the right and exercised it, and other cases where we haven't had the right, but done so anyway, if you agree that there have been different cases throughout history, leading up to today, then you must agree that the situation for the individual person, who makes up a nationality, who make up the term 'Australian' or 'American' or 'Muslim' or 'Western' or 'Terrorist'. And thus there is no such thing as a nation's values, like 'Australian' values. There are only values.

But that's not to say that every value is acceptable. I have stated that there are right and wrong values, and I hold that position, as will everyone, regardless. But it's the problem that, indeed, everyone has their own opinion of right and wrong values, that there is no uniformly accepted 'code' of values. If there were, the world would be perfect, but it isn't. And it isn't because 'Westerners' 200-100 years ago thought that capitalism, democracy and exploit should be imposed on people because they were the Capitalists'/Decocratiser's/Exploiter's values at the time, because some countries nationals believe that tyrannical dictatorship is a value everyone should share. It's not a perfect world because too many people make too many assumptions, and in terms of values, it's because too many people assume they know what the 'code' of values for the world population should be. Do I know? No. Do I think I could have a god at it? Certainly. Do I think I could make a 'code'? Hell yes. But if I do, aren't I just creating a list of 'Thomasonite' values? Yes, yes I am. Which is what, in itself, screws the world up even more.

Now before someone berates me for being a terrorists sympathiser, a supporter of religious fundamentalists, a supporter of any religion, race, creed, institute, outspoken Muslim clerics and the like, let me cover my bases and say this: I do not, will never, accept some values out there. What some people believe in is very, very, wrong, and there's no two-ways about it. But there is also misunderstanding. And we are a civilisation: and in it is the word we should all live by - civil. If we pride ourselves in being the smartest creatures on earth, the most intelligent, the most civilised, then shouldn't we act it? It is when people act on these abhorrent, these disgusting, these disgraceful values that shouldn't exist anywhere in the world that civilisation really becomes a word not to describe something civil, but to describe the neglectful, the digressed, the revolting ways of humans.

Thomas.