Deus Lo Vult

2007-10-04T18:43:00.000+10:00

This blog now exists, and lives, here:

http://deuslovult.wordpress.com/

Come on over!

Thomas.

2007-07-12T17:03:00.000+10:00

While I was on holidays, other than when I was in England (where all I heard about was the English cricket tri-series win) the only Australian-relevant news I ever heard was when John Howard said the following:

If I were running al Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008, and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats.

It was also the only news I got about Obama and what was happening for him in the US. And, being an Obama and Rudd fan, I really wanted to be back at home to see how a statement like that was received by the Australian and American media. I also hand-wrote a post that I intended to transcribe to here, but I lost the papers somewhere.

Anyway, when I got back, I found out that it had hardly received any attention at all. I was rather surprised - PM Howard had just blasted a potential presidential candidate and senator. It might not sound like much, but at the least I would have thought the ALP would have run with it for what it was worth. I assumed that they hadn't, and then completely forgot about the issue.

Then, watching the news today, I saw that Kevin Rudd has set up a MySpace account, not dissimilar to what American politicians have done to attract the attention of the younger vote that is techno-savvy. I've had Obama's on mine for some time, and during the fund raising season I was getting many a message from him.

Anyway, to get back to the point I was making, I added Rudd to my friends list, and then headed over to YouTube, noticing that Kevin has some videos on the MySpace video server. I went through, checking YouTube for Question Time videos and anything of interest that was Rudd-related. Then, to my surprise, I found this:

It's the Question Time that I longed to see! Well, part of it anyway. You have to remember that Rudd had only just started leading the ALP through Question Times when I left, so I missed his early days as Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives. And, now that I saw that video, I wish I hadn't even more so. I know that Beazley and co. were taking it to Howard when they were in charge, but watching Rudd do it is far more entertaining - because he does a better job at it!

I hate how those budging politicians take a monster break when I'm on holidays. Next available chance, I think I'm going to go down and watch a session for myself.

Thomas.

2007-07-10T15:47:00.003+10:00

I needed a break from other things, so I decided to retake the Political Compass test once again. It’s the first time I’ve taken it this year, though, for the past few years, I have taken it at the start, middle and end of the year to track changes in my political leanings. It’s something of interest to me these days as, not only do I like to know what I’m thinking politically, but there is an election coming this year: and let’s not forget one of my key interests in politics. I often wonder if all of my readings (about politics and social issues) and thoughts on what’s being said in the public sphere (as well as what’s being written) have had any influence what-so-ever on my personal politics.

Well, it would appear so from my latest results. If someone had told me a few years ago that I’d get a result like this, I would have laughed at them. I was extremely right-wing during my schooldays and upon leaving. Over the years, though, I’ve either mellowed out or woken up to something, as over the years I watched the red dot go progressively further and further left, then hover around the centre ever since.

Similarly, if someone had showed me these results years ago I would have been quite angry at it. Not anymore. I’m almost pleased to be getting that sort of a result. While I readily acknowledge that an online test hardly gives a full and accurate representation of my political beliefs, I think of myself as a centrist these days; something which I don’t think is exactly disproved with that graph.

Thomas.

2007-07-08T18:46:00.000+10:00

Last night was a diner for my cousin, who had turned 25 in the week and became engaged (it appears to be a disease going around, what with the St. Ives Correspondent also getting engaged through the week - something I'd like to voice my congratulations to him about before I speak to him in person). Attending this diner was family and friends. In all, around 30 or so spread across three tables (we were eating at a restaurant in Cronulla (a lot of my family are Shire-folk and haven't been outside of the boundaries that separate snob from bogan) which was very small) and took up around 70% of the place.

In preparation and research for my forth-coming post, I've been re-reading my sociology text books and articles I picked up along the way (I'm quite the hoarder and have every lecture note and textbook I've taken since day dot at university). The post that's coming is about communities and interrelatedness, as well as their relationship with identities and control and other stuff. Anyway, I had only just put down my Sociology: Themes and Perspectives when I headed there and started thinking about the party I was going to and the chapter I had only just finished: Media, identity and globalisation (yes, the act of a nerd).

The chapter, initially, looked at the early writings that were extremely pessimistic about how the media would be used to create a mass society where everyone was uniform in identity and isolated from the traditional 'groups' - family groups, 'friendship' groups and the 'community' (the world of personal loyalty and relationships (gemeinschaft by Tonnie) as opposed to the world of the impersonal market-based relationships which make up society (or gesellschaft, again by Tonnie)). Were the theorists (like Alexis de Tocqueville, Ferdinand Tonnies and Max Horkheimer) that "saw" this awful, market-driven and individualistic society correct? Are we that out-of-touch with the community, and now just one of the same, that these people were right?

No, I don't believe so. I think the theories that predicted this awful world of isolationism were quite a bit off because they had to contend with and struggle to understand developments, changes and technologies that did not exist in their times, nor could the writers understand what they were dealing with when things like computers and the early Internet etc. were released to the world. We don't even understand what effects technology that surrounds us yet, so how could these writers who had never seen them in action predict how we would turn out? The answers to to how positive or negative a world we have built will come in the form of my generation; how it develops, how it stands up against previous generations and where the world goes to from here. And that won't be evident soon: it will only become apparent when our parents and grandparents finally move over for the younger generation to take control.

The thought that triggered all of this was that I sometimes think that we are living in a society (gesellschaft) that is all about the individual. Then I thought about where I was going: a party. We, as a family and a group of friends, were celebrating another person in the sense that a community (gemeinschaft) would. The Thursday before, I saw my friend Andrew. The Monday I went to tea with Mr. Rabbit and the St. Ives Correspondent. The Saturday before that I was at a wedding for the Ombudsman, which was also a gathering of family and friends. All of these fly in the face of the individualistic notions of the sociologists who wrote about the 'future'.

And lets look a key piece of evidence that also disputes the early theories: the Internet. The Internet has its own community attached. Anyone who engages with it on a regular basis will know this and feels part of the community. The community they are attached might not be something big, perhaps just their blog and its handful of readers. On the other hand, you could be part of this massive community - a forum, an established chatroom, maybe you're a fan of a certain movie and whenever you speak to another fan, you feel 'at home' (in a sense). Either way, there is a certain degree of connectedness between Internet users who regularly 'do' the same thing. There is a community attached to the Internet, and this is something the brings people together.

But all of these things - the Internet, ways to access the Internet etc. - are all bound up within notions of capitalism. The Internet isn't free and is available to specific classes of people. But does this, at all, negate the fact that the Internet has created a community anyway? Or that traditional notions of community still exist in some for or another? Doesn't this simply mean that we can have the cake and eat it too? We still have our communities, but they exist in the society world? But not the society/gesellschaft that theorists tried to have us believe was the apocalyptic future. Rather, we have a society that is, yes, capitalist driven, but still with an element of humanity/personality? We are a mass society, and have similar traits and characteristics, but isn't that what being part of a community is: shared experiences and shared traits?

I'm a white male, 18-25, parttime employed, attending university, living in the suburbs of Sydney. I'm sure that there are heaps of people in that situation. But how many of them are exactly like me? How 'mass' is the mass society if it exists? If you want to generalise and categorise in terms like I just did, then yes, there are elements of hegemony. But unless you're going to scratch beneath the surface some more, you're going to get an incorrect feed of information. What we have are many communities existing within many societies. Both stretch beyond the traditional boundaries (such are the effects of technology and globalisation), thus enabling the people who propagate or establish either to exist in the other. The individual exists, but no where near as negative as what was predicted. And the context that the individual lives in is no where near as bad as the predictions either.

Anyway, I got to the party, had some fun, caught up with the family and met some new people. All-in-all it was a pleasant evening as I felt quite at home and looking forward to the next event - whether it be with my important family or as important friends.

Thomas.

2007-07-06T14:24:00.000+10:00

I have such a great post in the works. I think it might be the first post that would actually be reflective of me having attended two and a half years of university. The problem is that it's going to take some time to complete.

That's not to say I'm going to stop blogging until then, just that it might be some time before you see it. So don't hold your breath for it, but expect that something good will have come of these holidays.

Thomas.

2007-07-05T17:20:00.000+10:00

I really want to go in and see the USS Kitty Hawk before it leaves. Ignoring everything it stands for (like the greatest military power on Earth etc.), it's a freaking huge ship! And when is the next time an aircraft carrier is going to be docked in Sydney Harbour? I missed the QEII and the QMII opportunity, though I was in London at the time, so I was hardly having a bad time (but, then again, England had just won the tri-series ODI competition that was half-way through when I left, so that didn't help the situation). So I'm thinking I might go in Sunday or Monday.

Then again, the prospect of facing CityRail voluntarily as well exerting that much effort to get into the city is a daunting one. So who knows what will happen on this front.

Thomas.

2007-07-05T14:58:00.001+10:00

For the past month or so I've been tinkering with a WordPress version of this blog. I've finally come to a stage where I think it might be worth opening it up for people to look at and see if it's worth going over there permanently.

The main reason I want to transfer over is the ability to write pages and have the ability to edit them. Otherwise, it's basically the same, bar the variety of layouts. After the last two posts, and using all the 'code names' for the people I was referencing to, I took a leaf from Neil, at Lines from a Floating Life, who has a "Who's Who?" page explaining who are all of his referenced people. I thought that this was a great idea, and finally moved everything over to WordPress, created the pages and stuff that I've done so far, and am thinking of going over there full time.

Though, then again, it's pretty easy to update both blogs at once, so perhaps I'll write on both of them and let the readers pick. Anyway, here's the link (very original I must say):

http://deuslovult.wordpress.com/

Feedback appreciated etc.

Thomas.

2007-07-03T16:31:00.000+10:00

An Ombudsman's Wedding

Saturday the 30th of June, 2007. The day started out on a plus - I had the day off work so that I could make the wedding of my friend, the Ombudsman. It was important to go to as it would likely be the last time we saw him for months, as he takes up position in some far-flung school in outer-outer-outer NSW (or inner South Africa). I had, through the week, gone (shudder) clothes shopping to find a new shirt that didn't make me look like I had just come from a funeral. The arrangements were that I would pick up the St. Ives Correspondent's future wife and Mr. Rabbit, then we would all drive to the chapel.

Before leaving my house, I gathered the essentials: five dice, a deck of cards, The 18 Cup and my Lord of the Rings ring. I thought that, at the least, I would be entertained should the wedding prove to be a flop (not that there were any doubts with the studious planning of Mrs. Ombudsman and the absence of Mr. Ombudsman from that part of the wedding). The 18 Cup addition, really, was the only important this as we may be presented with an opportunity for a photo that rivals all others.

The evening before the day-of, however, the St. Ives Correspondent's future wife reported that she would be unable to attend, so it was left to Mr. Rabbit and myself to find our way there. I was glad to have someone helping me find the way, as my original plan (when I was driving myself) was to be pointed in the general direction from my driveway and leave two days prior. But, suffice to say, we arrived on time. Well, no, that's a lie. We were early. Very early. Around an hour. It was a great view and all from the carpark, but that can only sustain interest for so long. As can watching golfers (as The Coast golf course surrounded this chapel). So, we got a very strange breakfast (a bottle of V for myself, and a can of V and a Snickers bar for Mr. Rabbit) and then returned to the second carpark for the day. Lulling around, I realised that a parking spot of exactly the same potion, though the other side of the road, would be far more effective as I wouldn't have to do one of those pesky three-point-turns in front of a crowd (or witnesses should I hit another car/person/murder one of the occupants of the car). So I turned the car around in a single movement, and took that spot.

Mr. Rabbit and I watched as people arrived. We made quips and cynical jokes about passers by (as well as fellow wedding guests and people of administrative postions (i.e. violinists), as well as two rather strange characters - bikers who, no doubt, were doing some sort of drug exchange) to pass the time before Andrew and Pope Francious arrived (driven by their parents) and we met as a group. Conversations ensued, and eventually we decided that it would be warmer (as it was rather windy) inside the chapel. We moved into the waiting area, then, when we saw the Ombudsman and the St. Ives Correspondent (the best man) arrive, all four of us shuffled out to greet him. Andrew's mother (and father, who were loitering around to drive their sons to my house, where we would wait for the reception) pulled out her camera, and I quickly ran to the car - The 18 Cup! It was the only chance. Lined up, dressed in our finest, a pair of photos were snapped off, which will appear on here as soon as I've obtained a copy (quite possibly tomorrow).

Next it was time for the plebs to take their seats and the party to take up their positions. More conversations (and joking) ensued with the four commoners, while we waited for Mrs. Ombudsman to join Mr. Ombudsman and the St. Ives Correspondent up on the stage. To our surprise, the bridal party arrived in 1920s cars. Ford somethings (T's?). They appeared to have been driven right out of a mafia film, though, there were no mobsters hanging off the sides with guns. Andrew's father cased the cars as the first of millions of photos were taken.

Eventually Mrs. Ombudsman walked down the isle, words were exchanged and the end of the ceremony was upon us. After some egging on, Mr. Rabbit took some photos with his phone, then everyone moved out. As Mr. and Mrs. Ombudsman walked back down the isle, the official photographer said "Ok, when I count to three I want you both to throw your hands in the air. 1-2-3!" When this happened, Mrs. Ombudsman put her free hand up, and Mr. Ombudsman just kept walking with confusion written across his face, then, after prompting by the photographer once more, did some lame hand-movement which got us four laughing. This would become a running joke whenever someone took a photo.

Outside, congratulations were offered to the new couple, the five of us (no Ombudsman) had a conversation of sorts, then were ushered into a mob to get a big group photo. A normal (sane) photo was taken, followed by the photographer yelling over the wind "Ok, when I count to three I want you both to throw your hands in the air. 1-2-3!" Our group had a chuckle, then, when the moment came, threw up our hands with gusto. I would very much like to get a copy of that photo.

The time came to leave (after having a roll of film wasted on us to come to the end), upon which Mr. Rabbit, Andrew and Pope Francious all got a lift in my car. We headed home, then decided that it was time to get lunch and would do so at Revesby Workers Clubs. The idea was enticing, especially, because we were all suited up and would out-dress anyone there (a rare occurrence for some of the group). We went to the bistro, was told it was closed, then went to the cafe-type thing near to the ATMs, which are near to the poker machines. I ordered a club sandwich which came with an alarming amount of salad. When Andrew went to get drinks, I slipped a slice of cucumber under his chicken in the home he might accidentally eat eat (he didn't, thus reaffirming his commitment to never eat vegetables ... ever).

We had to find four hours to waste, and lunch and Mr. Rabbit's gambling only took up one and a half. We headed back to my house and played some Jin Rummy (with slight confusion, as everyone played to different rules). Suffice to say, Thomas won. Here we all decided, as well, that we would not be wearing ties to the reception. Thankfully Mr. Rabbit remembered to take his with him. The same can't be said of Andrew and the Pope, who in their collective wisdom, both thought that the other had it.

Finally it was time to go to the reception, which my father drove us all there (as I intended to drink at this party), dropped us off, and left. Once again, we were early. Around half an hour. We decided (after some arguing) that we would walk down to Bankstown Sports Club, not go in, turn around, and walk back. We had some strange looks from passers by - remembering that we were all dressed in suits, while myself and Andrew had gone so far as to wear waistcoats. This circuit wasted fifteen minutes, upon which we entered the room with other arriving guests.

The four of us were table 12, which would, come the end of the night, be renowned (and even called so by Mrs. Ombudsman) as the best table there. For once it felt like sitting at the cool table at school - something, I suspect, none of those seated at table 12 were privy to in their school days. Out of everyone at the table, only one (Andrew) was not a teacher or intending to be one. The three other ladies who sat at our table were, or had been, teachers at the Ombudsman's old school of employment (Nasser Hussein High School). We (Andrew and I, who were the only two who showed an interest in the stories that came from N.H.H.S. and hadn't taught there (the Pop doesn't care for stories of other people and hasn't taught there)) questioned some of the employees (current and former) as to whether the tales we heard from the Ombudsman were indeed true. We weren't exactly surprised to hear that they all were. Even an impression that this one lady did was a ringer for the Ombudsman's.

The entres came and went, then the Ombudsman's father came and talked to the renowned (as we would find out through the night as people came up and said to us "So you're the poker people", or things to that effect) poker group, and, after being informed that we are now avid 500 players, questioned us about the rules. You see, he is also an avid, and seasoned, 500 player. A nagging question would continue through the night, up until we all left - how do you play the joker in a misère hand?

The main meals came, and at that same time, entertainment (provided by various family members of the Ombudsman) came on as well. One was a magician/comedian. Our St. Ives Correspondent was called upon to help out with one trick, as was Mr. Rabbit. The show was rather interesting. Following this, however, was an extremely hilarious and entertaining comedian/impressionist (not the artist kind). He made so many rib-splitting, politically incorrect jokes about suburbs and CityRail and stereotypes and what-have-you. Of course, table 12 loved every minute of it, while some jokes were too pushing for others. One extremely entertaining part was when the St. Ives Correspondent was called upon to take part in a roller-coaster impression. The video of this can be found on Mr. Rabbits blog.

Food ended and music started. Mr. and Mrs. Ombudsman had their dance, which was very nice, then everyone else was invited to join. I pride myself on being a bad dancer. Wait, let me rephrase that: I pride myself on being an awful dancer. I make no bones about it - I can't dance. At least I'm not in denial about this sort of stuff, as I know others are about their singing voice or their dancing moves. So, knowing that I can't dance, though I'm an addict for making a scene, the question is: am I going to try and dance ok, or not at all, or go out and bust some horrible moves. Horrible moves it was. Mr. Rabbit informs me that the next video that may go up to his blog is of me dancing the Nutbush. I, on that night, had been drinking steadily, and hadn't danced the Nutbush for a long time, so I'm expecting to be just as bad in that video as I am in any other.

I blinded everyone with two dances, while Andrew and the Pope tried their moves with two of the ladies on table 12 (renowned and infamous at this point in the night for being the vocal table during the comedians and producing two atrocious dancers). I was more interest in socialising with Mr. Rabbit, St. Ives Correspondent and the Ombudsman, knowing full well that this was the last time. And then the whole severity of the situation finally caught me - the Ombudsman was going. This will, no doubt, lead into a much more depressing tone and post if I continue with it (as it's still something I find quite sad), so I shan't be going on. We discussed the day's events, how the photos in the city (by the Opera House I believe) went, as well as what we had all noticed, and observations that we had been making, through the course of the reception. Good laughs and conversations took place between us all, which really brought the evening to a great ending.

As the night drew to a close, I called for my lift (which was also Mr. Rabbit's and the St. Ives Correspondent's). I wished Mrs. Ombudsman the best of luck and gave her my congratulations, then Mr. Ombudsman a few times on the way out. Quickly I stole the number 12 sign from our table, gathered our free photo frame and my name-place, my jacket and we headed out. Misty-eyed I, along with the St. Ives Correspondent, waved the happy couple, and our friends, goodbye.

It was an excellent wedding, and the first I wasn't obliged to go to because of a family association. It was the wedding of my friend, and I was in attendance with my other friends. It was a great night, and a wonderful experience. I know it's something I'm going to remember for some time for two reason. I see this as some sort of 'coming of age' thing: the first of my friends has got married (and the second is very soon I hear). Secondly, and the main reason for the night being quite 'special', because it was the last hurray and farewell for our greatest of friends: the Ombudsman.

Thomas.

2007-07-01T00:43:00.000+10:00

Bucks 'Party!' 2007

The day started off, for myself, at 4:00am. I had to work the day. Dreadfully boring and uninteresting, so I'm not about to talk about it. I finished at 1:30pm, and went home, showered and changed and headed to East Hills train station where I would catch a bus into Sydenham. I would catch a bus because the line was closed for repairs/fixing/money-wasting. I caught the bus with my friend Andrew, as any trip into the city is awfully lonely. Arriving at Sydenham, we caught a train to Town Hall (which was the second stop, even though the train display said it was the last), disembarked and walked towards Star City, which is where we were to meet up the rest of the party-goers for the evening's events.

We were meeting people after the had seen a musical event called "Play!" at the Opera House. I couldn't go as I had to work (taking this Saturday finished forty-four minutes ago off for the wedding), and consequently, I was to meet everyone in the city after their show. Andrew decided he wasn't going as well. We decided that because we planned on drinking, we should stop for lunch, which we did at a window-filled shopping centre on the water. I had a turkey-meat sandwich, while Andrew had something from KFC. It was my first 'meal' for the day. Next we stopped in the last bar before Star City. I don't know what it was called, but I had a schooner of Tooheys New (my rare brush with middle-class Australia) while Andrew had something (possible a Carlton Draught, though now I think of it, he may have said that they didn't actually have that and got the same as me). We downed these and found our way around to Star City, where we enter. Realising I had absolutely no money on me, I exited (because there are no ATMs on the gaming floor), got out $200, and re-entered. Andrew, who had money, didn't have to worry about the ATMs.

We looked around the floor and went where (I thought) was a cheap and safe bet - $5 minimum bet roulette. You can still bet $1 per lay-down (unlike the tables, where you have $5 chips) but a minimum of $5. I thought we would be alright there, as I have been somewhat successful at this type of betting at Revesby Workers clubs (especially with the soon-to-be Mayor of Menindee). Unfortunately, it wasn't meant to be, and I lost a quick $25. I wasn't exactly displeased, as that's a mere fraction of what I've lost to the coffers of Star City in the past, but losing, as always, is unpleasant.

I received the phone call from the fellow party goers that their arrival was imminent (we had arrived early you see), and should position ourselves to find them. I cashed out of my machine (Andrew having done so already prior) and headed towards the front entry, where we would find the St. Ives Correspondent, Mr. Rabbit and the future Mayor of Menindee. I was informed that his royal highness Pope Francious II had thought it quicker by foot from the Opera House to Star City, and decided to walk, much to the displeasure of some. Suffice to say, he wasn't quicker. In fact, he was late. Very late.

Very very late.

We were to have a meal (dinner I believe it's called) at the buffet, which was enticing. My previous experiences with the Star City buffet had been nothing but enjoyable, so I wasn't put off. We lined up for roughly 20-30 minutes, where the Pope had joined us at around the 25 minute mark, then we found our table and loaded our plates. The Pope appeared to get sick (though I suspect that he had the germs prior to the meal) and ate little, and even reproduced what he had previously tried to stomach at subsequent times through the evening. I enjoyed mos of my meal, though the bread-and-butter pudding left much to be desired. Towards the middle, it tasted like eating a half-cooked egg. Though the custard was nice.

After this meal, we headed for the bar/lounge at the back corner, behind the poker tables. The Pope as sitting on scotch, whiskey or bourbon (it all looks the same to me) and planned on using that as his cure for his sickness. I had a $7.50 Stella, which I though was an atrocious price, though couldn't do anything about it. I sat with the Pope and Andrew for some time, being told the wonders of Queensland, future plans of the Pope and the state of music right now. Andrew left at some point, lost his money, and returned. Do note that I didn't exactly discuss topics here, rather I was told them by one particular person.

Eventually, the gambling itch that so readily annoys me surfaced and I found my way to the Blackjack table that my best of friends were rotating on. Mayor of Menindee had a permanent fixture on the table, and the seat beside him (the first seat on the table) had been sat in by Andrew and the St. Ives Correspondent to many blogs, to their detriment. Not caring if I lost or won (I did care, but I can put on a good face), I took up the seat and got a colour-change - my greens ($25 x 3) for reds ($5). The minimum bet was $15, so that's what I did.

I was quite successful, but the amount of fun I was having (and believe I helped everyone else that mattered have) was what made the night. I am renowned for either having a good time or making a joke of myself/others at the card table. Whether it's other players or the dealer (not including myself) I can have fun with them. Last year (or before) I invented a call-sign for a King-Jack deal: Johny Cash. It sounded smart at the time and it stuck. Also, people believe me to be a somewhat reasonable card player after witnessing me win The 18 Cup an insane amount of times, then go on to 500 with some success. So people, from our party group, were happy to watch myself and the Ombudsman (aka the future Mayor of Menindee) play our way to a financial state equivalent to that of bankrupt . The only thing was that along with all the fun we created, we didn't lose. In fact, we came out ahead. I don't know about my compadre Mayor specifically, but I believe we doubled (at least) all the money we laid down.

I must admit that I had good support from my great friends, the dealers, the other players and the cards. Now, not to be stereotyping or racist or anything, but people of Asian descent who sit at card tables that I play at generally don't know a large amount of English - but they do know the word 'picture'. This is the call-sign for a card equal value to that of a ten i.e. a Jack, a Queen, a King or a straight ten. I have adopted 'picture' to my vocabulary for some odd reason (probably because of it's easy and novelty). So I would yell picture whenever I was dealt something that would need it And, for a majority of times, I got it. The same would be if I said it about any unit card I need - a three, a two, a six, whatever - which freaked me out. It was rather spooky I must say. So my table manners were rather bizarre. I would get an atrocious card, then start yelling the value of the card that I needed at the other card. When I got it, I would act appropriately - which either consisted of sweet-talking the dealer into giving me a card I wanted, doubling up or hitting/standing. This proved successful, as my end balance would prove.

My compadre, the Ombudsman, had this trick to split. This, I must say, is a no-no on the Blackjack table. There are rules that experienced player (I like to include myself in that group because I play by these rules) play to - you don't split; you stand the whole way around the table if the deal has a four, five or six; and there are others. But the general rule is you don't split. And credit to the Ombudsman, splitting made him a very wealthy man - regardless of the fact that the whole table would groan if he did this or the dealer (one in particular) would ask him if he was sure, three times, if he wanted to take this course of actions. The Ombudsman proved to be the smart player in the end.

We sat at that table for hours, and the dealers were readily rotated. The first, Aimee, was good to us. When she left, I inquired to her replacement if she was headed to another table (as I would have followed luck), to which he said she was going home. Without hesitation, I asked if she had a card table at home. The replacement was also good, but my antics seemed to put him off, so I was rather glad when he left. His replacement, another guy (Andrew I believe his name was) was slow and steady - and again unlucky as the Ombudsman and I came out ahead. Around this time I had someone start to bet on me. I hate people betting on me because I lose my concentration. And I feel pressured to do things I wouldn't. So, when a box cleared, I was glad to be rid of him.

Then the next dealer came, and a few boxes opened up (some were put off by the Ombudsman's splitting method). One who came was an Asian man, no older than 27, who was betting as I find Asians regularly do - with vigor. Beside the Ombudsman was an American. And, around this time, I invented the word party. Allow me to explain what a party is to everyone:

A party, as Thomas' dictionary defines it, is when three people bet in the single betting box, thus filling out the square with the maximum amount of betters. A street party is if more than one box if filled with to the maximum capacity of bets.

So, as the night wore on, myself, the Ombudsman, the American and the Asian began to bet in these 'parties'. And, whenever a box filled up, some of us would yell out "On the party!" and hope to the all-mighty that it won, because they were generally big payouts. Then, if the box had only two bets, and we needed the third to get the party, the two who were in were left to rustle up the third bet, in order to get the party going. Funnily enough, by yelling the same "On the party!" we got betters. It must have been awfully confusing or onlookers.

If the party box one, celebrations would ensue. And, more often than not, it won. No one person was in charge of it, though the Asian or the American would do the calling for the box, as I was distanced. If the party box lost however, there were a variety of reasons why:

The party food sucked
The music sucked
The cops showed up
There's a better party somewhere else (which meant that chips would go to a different party box next time)
Going home for a one-man party (which meant you were just going to bet in your own box)
I'm starting my own party (which meant that you were going to start a party in your box)

This call-sign system just got more and more elaborate as the evening wound on. And it complimented the night perfectly. Unfortunately, Mr. Rabbit had left to go and see Othello, so he missed out on the evening's festivities and humour - two things I know aren't in Othello haha.

There was another Asian man who was sitting in the last seat of the table, who didn't say a single word through the whole evening. He sat down after the Ombudsman (he was the longest single sitter there) and stayed after we left, and not a single word. I tried to get him to talk, but who knows what he thought I was saying to him.

Whenever the Ombudsman split his pairs, more often than not, he would receive some jovial threats against his life, such as "I'll see you in the car park". The dealer received more though, especially when they were on a wining streak. But, when the winning streak came to an end, all was fun again, and the baseball bats were filed to the back of our memories. And when they started on a losing streak, then it was all fun and games with them.

The evening wound on, and, as it was going to be the last sojourn that our complete group could partake in for three years (things pending of course), most of us wanted to play our own game of cards - specifically: 500. So, it was time for last hands. I bet, the Ombudsman bet, and we both won. Then, as I was stacking my chips, I had an unfortunate amount of $5 chips, so I spread them across the board in what was my last bet. I joined my own square and then two parties, betting $45 total. Each hand won and the celebrations were enormous. I'm sure that Mr. Rabbit could have heard us all the way over at the Opera House were were that loud. High-fives and cheering all round. Onlookers had no idea as we were yelling "Party!" at one another over and over again. I collected my chips (rather hastily) and then we headed off to our St. Ives Correspondent home, where we enjoyed some grand hands of 500 - of interest two called and won 9-calls (which, if you haven't played 5000, will mean nothing).

The car trip home was a test of all our immune systems. Pope Francious, who was getting progressively sicker and sicker through the night was bottled into a car with four other people (myself, Andrew, St. Ives Correspondent and the Ombudsman) with the air conditioner on, rather than windows down. I pride myself on having ridiculously strong immune system - in the past ten years, I've only ever had a cold/flu/generic sickness twice. And I am exposed to sick people on a regular basis - I catch crowded public transport, I attend packed Uni rooms, I was going to school in some of those years, my family always appear to be sick, I work in customer service, etc. So I'm proud of my immune system. And this car trip was a real test of it. Suffice to say, I didn't end up getting sick, while our St. Ives Correspondent and the Ombudsman (who, both, we were all worried about as they had quite the important functions to perform the following weekend/yesterday) did. They took extreme measures and healed up, but that was only through the week.

Upon arriving at our St. Ives Correspondent's home, we engaged in cards and cards, and played 500 into the wee hours of the morning. Andrew and Pope Francious headed home early (as they were being driven home by their parents), while I, the Ombudsman, Mr. Rabbit and our St. Ives Correspondent's continued to play. Without a doubt it was the most enjoyable afternoon/evening/night/early morning that I have ever been part of, and it pains me (now) to know that it may be some time before the next one. Ignoring that gray cloud, I can't help but think of how great a time we all had (well, bar the infected/sick one) and that we are all looking forward to the next.

I may have forgotten some other interesting tidbits of the evening, and if so, I invite anyone who was there to remind me and I'll write them in. Of course, if any of the "Play!" people have stories of interest or note from before the meeting at Star City, then, by all means, do comment.

Thomas.

2007-06-29T00:51:00.000+10:00

I am loathe to make this the top post, rather than the previous, but this has, in fact, become the most successful month this blog has seen in its short life.626 visits thus far. It broke the 600th visit last night; they were a visitor I've noted as a regular, who lives in Canberra, using tgpi.com (Samuel perhaps?). At least, that's who I think the 600th was. If it wasn't, then it was me.

And page views has also set a new record - 1261. With one day to go, a post that has been linked elsewhere and a few more posts to come, I wonder if it would be too much to see if we could reach the 700 mark?

No, even that's out of reach right now ...

Or is it ...

Thomas.

2007-06-26T21:30:00.000+10:00

Here's a post I've fantasised about doing for a long, long time. I've pretty much mentally mapped out what i want to write, and have handwritten a lot of it. Granted, all of this occurred during exceedingly boring university tutorials and lectures, but it's something that I've wanted to write for a long time.

A while ago I mentioned a new way of doing my own movie reviews in a post back in March. I've tweaked it and refined it so that it's overly complex, so confusing and without rules that, well, only the mind of Thomas can comprehend it. I'm a very considerate blogger. Now, to write out these movie battles, I've also had to hearken back to my high school English education and draw on all that marvelous and wonderful stuff that, at the time, I didn't particularly see a longterm use for (I guess that school was just preparing my to write movie reviews on my blog).

The first combat that I ever thought of was Amélie vs. Garden State, two films that I do hold dear. One has the ever-so exquisite Audrey Tautou while the other has the stunning Natalie Portman. In my opinion, these are the two actors (I've come around to call both actors and actresses actors now) that could go on to become big things in Hollywood and secure a rank of immortality in history. But, then when I think really about it, they might be facing an uphill fight (Audrey Tautou is French and not an American and shys away from modern notions of celebrity and fame, while Natalie Portman refuses to do nude scenes, isn't modern 'celebrity' either and hasn't (nor will I predict) follow in the traditional footsteps of modern actors, and then there's the problem that she manages to pick the odd dodgey film to act in). Anyway, these two films are among my all time favourites because I recognise them as the best films yet that either actor has stared in. Others would argue against this, but because this is my blog, it's the truth.

I've sung the praise of Amélie before, and repeatedly. Here is the most notable example (and I always thought that I had published that in early '07, when it was, after all, December '06). I've always liked that post, and 'Mr. Rabbit' sang its praise (I think) once as well. But I've never felt that I've done it justice. And I've never touched on Garden State even once, which I'm ashamed at. But no more! With the all new Thomas Movie Review System 2007, I'm attempting to convey both my admiration of both films and why I believe them to be cinematic masterpieces and vastly underrated.

Let's start with the review system. There's a range of categories that I'll judge both films by that will no doubt vary between the films. This variation occurs because the two films I compare have similarities with each other, and they've been paired for this reason. Next time, when I pair together The Star Wars Saga against The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, while there will be some categories that have to cross over, what makes Star Wars and Lord of the Rings great are different to what makes Amélie and Garden State great. What's going to be focused on here is technical and story aspects, because that's what resides with you when you've finished watching these films. Each category has only one winner (unless there are exceptional circumstances) and the winner gets one point (or two, again, pending circumstances). If a film does a disservice to itself or the category, then it may get a negative point, but that will be rare. Anyway, after all that boring explanation stuff, it's time to get into it.

Let's start with the main protagonist. They are, after all, of the most importance to any film. We are not, for the moment, considering the actors' portrayal of each character, rather the characters themselves. Amélie Poulain is, and I can't believe I'm about the type this, the main character of Amélie. Here we have a character that could be construed as cliché by someone who doesn't appreciate the film or the simple-complex character. Because that's what we have here - Amélie is such a simple character, but as the film progresses, and what we first perceived as simple turns out to be a façade that Amélie has built up to protect he extremely complex and teetering true self. Amélie, through some basic movie techniques, becomes a very familiar character, and ultimately, much more relatable to the audience. I find myself empathising with Amélie right up to the end of the film, and finally, when she manages to find what she has been looking for through the whole movie (an untangled and 'simpler' life, and the ability to love), a welling of emotions and the feeling that she's going to be alright.

Amélie's complexity, as stated, is far from apparent in the beginning. And it's Amélie simplicity, thus, that attracts us to her from the outset. It's a change from the emotionally distraught (or perhaps emotionally unavailable, and thus unrelatable, as we see in quite a few Hollywood films) characters that flood our screen. This is, of course, in contrast to how Amélie is established by the film's introduction - she is a shown to have quite a varied and peculiar childhood. After meeting adult Amélie, I initially wonder why she appears to be so normal. Because she can conduct herself in a way that appears to fly in the face of psychological animosity, we are drawn to her. Then, come 'the fateful event' that acts as catalyst to the unfolding of the film, and as the film steadily progresses to its conclusion, we, at a more rapid rate, realise that Amélie battles her past, her problems and her complexity in a way that almost seems familiar to the audience. And why shouldn't it? The audience doesn't need to be fooled into thinking that either Amélie's problems or their own are of no consequence to either party, and thus another front of relatability is opened on the audience.

To sum up Amélie Poulain: it's the character's relatability, in my opinion, that makes this character so key to the film, because the film, as a whole, attempts to and succeeds in being relatable. It's beauty and simplicity (on a separate level from that I was discussing with Amélie) would fall flat if the audience couldn't relate to the journeys that Amélie embarks on and is metaphorically pushed down. It would take a mighty character to overthrow Amélie from gaining the first points in this movie battle indeed.

Andrew Largeman is one of the most masked characters I've ever seen in film. I tried to think of a metaphor for him, and the best I could come up with was a mask, inside of and onion, wearing a mask, wearing an apple skin. Once you think you've figured out Andrew, you then see him in a new setting, with new influences and he acts in a totally different way than what you would expect of him. But, most importantly, he isn't complex for complexity's sake, nor is he overly complex. He is just unpredictable and, strangely enough, what I perceive as real. Andrew has to contend with real problems, he has to deal with real people, and he finds himself in contexts, environments and settings. Andrew, and thus what revolves around him in the film, is real. It's not so far to stretch the mind to see a movie like this happening for the most part. Amélie, on the other hand, requires a little more of a stretch. But is Andrew any more of a real character than Amélie because of the entirety of the film?

It is my belief that that isn't an important question when comparing the two films. It's whether Andrew is more or less relatable than Amélie that is important for a character comparison. Without a relatable character, the film suffers. And when watching Garden State I come to notice one things - I am more 'invested' in the other characters that revolve around Andrew rather than in Andrew himself. While Andrew is construed as this real and 'sterile' character who has been dumbed down by medication and suppressed emotions, the people around him are not so, and you find yourself drawn to the people that come into contact with him. But, after the establishing shots of the film - Andrew in a cabin of hysteric people on a plane about to crash where he simply adjusts the air vent calmly; Andrew lying in his white bed with nothing other than a phone in the room creating a very bland, uncolored, uninteresting and (important to note) unrelatable setting that Andrew lives in - we find that this is precisely how Andrew is meant to be - unrelatable. And while this pushes and helps the film to no end, it, ultimately, costs Garden State the one point for main character comparison.

Score:
Amélie [1]
Garden State [0]

Now, for a comparison for the two people who bring the previously compared characters to life. Audrey Tautou is Amélie. I don't think that sentence can convey the meaning that I want to send out. Audrey Tautou, in front of the camera, in the film Amélie, really is Amélie. If I were to ever meet Tautou, I would fully expect her to be Amélie. And I'd be surprised if she wasn't. She not only brings this character to life on the screen, she brings her to life in you - you believe that Amélie can, and does, exist by her performance.

To further the argument to Audrey's side, her style is sublime. The uniqueness and individuality and the quirks that she brings to the role gives that lively edge to Amélie. And then you just watch her on the screen, not in the role of Amélie, and she owns any shot she is in. She can captivate the audience simply by looking at it. She has the ability to tug on the emotions of the audience with just the facial expressions that she can produce. A smile from Audrey Tautou in this role makes you smile back. When Amélie finally finds herself and what she's been after the whole movie (either consciously or subconsciously) you actually feel happy for her as long as you're not afraid to become 'involved' with the film. And it's not a hard thing to do with Audrey Tautou enticing you to.

I believe Zach Braff has pulled the short straw on this one. Braff is a fantastic actor, and without-a-doubt an actor I would much prefer to see in movies than in the television show Scrubs. I believe Braff has the ability to do so much more and become one of the leading figures in Hollywood, and Garden State was a good start. In fact, it was a fantastic start. Braff, in a contrast to all of his other roles, doesn't rely on his natural comedic abilities, nor his ability to get emotion across. Instead, he manages to effectively stifle all of Andrew's emotions and feelings and expressions to the living-comatose state that Andrew has been medicated into. It's a difficult task, and a task well done by Braff.

But Zach Braff is no Audrey Tautou. Braff, while he has the ability to hide emotion, doesn't have the ability that Tautou has to fleetingly betray what Amélie is feeling on the inside. This hearkens back to the beauty that is the Amélie character, but also acts as a testament to Tautou's abilities as an actor. A simple, adjusted, expression at the right time, in the right context, is all that it takes. I find it hard to believe that Braff wrote Largeman as a blank piece of paper that had not real emotion inside, especially when we see his breakdown and later expression of love for the woman he meets on his return journey. And because this emotion exists inside of him, build up over the years, I also find it hard to believe that not even an ounce of it would have crept out once in the movie at a part that betrays Andrew's real feelings.

In summary: while Braff is a fantastic actor, and in my opinion has his best role and performance in Garden State, Audrey Tautou manages to streak ahead with her portrayal of Amélie. Braff's ability to stifle all emotion is what lets him down in the face of Tautou's ability to become Amélie and to make you believe that she is the character - and that the character is a real human being.

Score:
Amélie [2]
Garden State [0]

Garden State finally comes to a point where it has a chance to catch up to its competition. Amélie and Audrey Tautou were formidable opponents indeed, but, when comparing the supporting characters and cast of the two films, as I previously stated, Garden State needed to, and did, excel in this department. But I'm getting ahead of myself. Here we compare the two main characters who help Amélie and Andrew Largeman through their journeys. The two I have selected are Sam, as portrayed by Natalie Portman, and Nino Quincampoix, as portrayed by Mathieu Kassovitz from Garden State and Amélie respectively.

Sam is a quirky character, on par with Amélie. They are both similar in some respects (they both are on a journey to find a better self, and in the case of these two films, that is through 'true' love; they both understand themselves, but struggle for others to see them for who they are; the two characters are 'colour' in their films) but, as is the case for their roles in their films, they do differ. Sam provides relief and animation in contrast to Andrew Largeman's sterile and subdued characteristics. Sam is partly there for some comedy against the seriousness that prevails in Andrew's life. But same is also stability, reason and another 'way' through the journey. How so? Because Sam brings into Andrew's life real stability, not the pseudo-crutch that the drugs he takes provide. She also is the single influence that reanimates Andrew which sets him on a more fulfilling and eventful journey. And, of course, Sam, like all great supporting characters, has the big serious speech that knocks Andrew and the crowd (when they actually think about it) to the floor when they should be. For example, Sam, after it being revealed to all that she lied about why she had a helmet with her, says that the real reason she had to carry it was that she had epilepsy, and needed it to stay employed (in case she had a fit and hurt herself). In response to this, Sam provides a nice little theory on self-perception:

"The helmet I was wearing... Oh come on, that's funny. That's really funny, I mean I'm the only person who wears a helmet to work who isn't putting out fires or racing for NASCAR. But what do you do, I can't quit... their insurance is amazing, what do you do? You laugh. I'm not saying I don't cry but in between I laugh and I realize how silly it is to take anything too seriously. Plus, I look forward to a good cry. It feels pretty good."

It's in typical Braff style (to turn a serious issue into part-comedy), but it's the essence of Sam the character that enables us to take a look at ourselves and laugh. Eventually this turns into a prelude to the closing of the film when Andrew and Sam have had their good, long stares at themselves, had their "laughs", and then each have their respect "good cry".

Sam is instrumental in Andrew's discovery of the end of his journey and the beginning of his new one. Without a doubt if the two were not there to compliment one another then the movie would be dead in the water. Sam brings the life to this film with the other supporting characters. It cannot be stressed enough that while Sam does all of the above, it is in conjunction with all those other secondary characters, and they are all actors in Andrew's journey.

As with the Andrew Largeman character, Nino Quincampoix got the raw end of this deal. The character is lively, individual and unique in much of the same fashion of Sam and Amélie, but he just isn't as interesting as the two. He is intriguing, but just doesn't go that extra step to grab hold of my interest and keep it maintained. Nino also suffers from a problem you rarely ever see. The minor characters that help Amélie, though are of less importance when compared to Nino, are as uniquely detailed, familiar and relatable as he (though less fleshed out), leading to him blending into the background at times, when he should be off the shoulder of Amélie. I fail to see how this is the reason for having Nino, as I would put the finger on him to be one of the two main influences on Amélie through her journey (the other being Raymond Dufayel, who might have warranted his own section of comparison with Mark from Garden State).

Further, Nino doesn't act the catalyst that Sam does. The night of Princess Diana's death is readily acknowledged by the narrator as the trigger. The argument could be made that Sam isn't the trigger, rather Andrew's mother's death is, however, I would then argue to you that Andrew would have returned to LA in the same, drugged out and melancholic state that he left in had he never met Sam. Thus Andrew would have never changed, and he would have had no stage of self-discovery, self-awareness or chance to redesign the path of his journey. Nino, as I see it, doesn't play this same, pivotal role. He certainly is instrumental, though not the linchpin that Sam is.

To sum it up: Amélie suffers its first defeat in comparison of secondary characters. While the entire array of characters that both films present, if compared as an entirety, would have seen a much more difficult and hard fought battle, Sam up against Nino is, in my opinion, a no-brainer.

Score:
Amélie [2]
Garden State [1]

We come to contrast, now, the two actors behind the previously compared characters. Natalie Portman, as Sam, provides, in this blogger's opinion, one of the top two performances of her career. But can Mathieu Kassovitz come out from behind the eight-ball with his portrayal of Nino Quincampoix? It's a mighty task, and anyone who has looked around this blog would have seen the answer already, but I'd like to at least justify why I believe Portman leaves Kassovitz in the cold.

My adoration for Natalie Portman is no secret, and may (likely to) have clouded my vision here. I make no lies of it. But, the important thing to remember is that this really was a standout performance for Portman in amongst the dreaded Star Wars prequels. Two films of hers came out at the same time, and she won a Golden Globe (Supporting Actress) for her performance in Closer and was nominated for the same Academy Award. In my opinion, this role was the better of the two. Anyway, that's just my opinion in general about Natalie Portman's career - what about her showing in Garden State? It's perfect. It's a massive difference from earlier work, and strangely, such is Portman's acting ability, you can forget all those other roles as she draws you in on the film you're watching there and then. Any scene that she is in, you're concentrating on. Her performance is so spectacular that you're mind only wanders in as much as you wonder what's happening with the film.

Sam is such a complex character and could have easily been a detriment to the film. That would only happen if the character was portrayed by someone who, really, didn't have the skills to pull it off. Portman has, quite possibly, the same acting style as Audrey Tautou bar one thing - where Tautou is demure and somewhat unassuming, though certainly in possession of the scene, Portman has a strong and dominating (when there is a need for it) presence on the screen. If Sam is to stand out or be the tallest tree, then Portman steps up to the plate. If Sam needs to step away from the spotlight, Natalie is able to do that just as well. I would throughly enjoy comparing similar, main roles that Portman and Tautou had, if they have had any that is. But regardless, we aren't comparing those two, we are comparing Natalie to Mathieu.

Natalie also has the ability to send out strong emotions. Where Audrey perhaps has a limit to how she can express the strongest of emotions at the highest degree (fits of rage; crying; ecstasy etc.) Natalie seems to have no problem. I dare to say that Portman also can convey and evoke as much with a smile as Tautou, if not a degree more. I attribute this to the 'foreign divide' (which I will discuss later) but it's something that must be considered. I have distinct memories from Garden State, and all of them are of Natalie convey the strongest of emotions - a bright smile, a believable laugh, crying in the phone booth. And this is a true symbol of a memorable, strong and relatable character - and she is merely portraying a secondary character.

Most importantly, it is Sam's relatability through Portman that saves Garden State. We have established Andrew as, for the most part, sterile and shut-off. Sam is far from that. She is lovable and kind and interesting and unique. But, quite easily, with the wrong casting, Sam could have been an obnoxious lier who the audience comes to loathe. Portman doesn't allow for that, and you have no option other than to love Sam.

And we come to Mathieu Kassovitz who has the impossible task of besting Portman's glowing performance. Unfortunately, I cannot say that he did. In fact, I don't think he came as close as one might think. Certainly he is a superb actor and knows what he is doing, but in comparison to Portman, we have another Braff - at the end of the short straw. Kassovitz manages to put the quirks into Nino that is required to make him of interest and similar to the strange display of characters that surround Audrey. A man who collects discarded photo booth photos would naturally have antisocial tenancies - Kassovitz manages to convey these quite effectively. I could almost believe that he lived all alone and worked in an adult entertainment store, was a recluse (in the barest of senses) to the world and had lost his direction, while enjoying getting lost.

But it's this almost that leaves him short. There is something between Kassovitz' efforts in this role and the believability that doesn't connect as well as the three previously mentioned characters. I have one memory of him in my mind from the film (though, of course, more if I tried to think of them) and that is his reaction through the plate glass at seeing Amélie. But the smile and the expression that Kassovitz puts on isn't exactly clear. It's slightly ambiguous - and not in an effective way. While the character should be clearly excited and elated at finding, who he believes, is the woman he has been searching for (the woman who has been playing the intriguing games with him), it's more the look of seeing an old friend. While I couldn't fault the man for one wrong thing in a perfect film, it's quite enough to suffer a defeat from Natalie Portman.

To sum up: Natalie Portman is the Audrey Tautou to Garden State. What we have in her is the distinct ability to bring the movie, her's, and other's characters to life. The colour, the emotion and the vibrant display of talent that comes from Portman in this role is undoubtedly one of her best, and really deserves recognition (more than it received). This, of course, isn't at the expense of Mathieu Kassovitz, nor to his detriment. He is a wonderful actor and manages to do what is asked of him in the film, just not as clearly, or with as much power or force, as Portman does. It's another point to Garden State here.

Score:
Amélie [2]
Garden State [2]

Now it's onto the juicy stuff. The stuff that you can sink your teeth into. The stuff that they want you to focus on in school these days - the technical aspects of the films. And, to be honest, there are few better examples of technical superiority or experimental successes in movies these days (nor for the past ten years I'd venture a guess at) than Amélie or Garden State. But what makes them so good? Well, I've devised four topics to cover all of the aspects, each worth one point, that really are standouts in both of these films: camera work, 'colour' and 'the rest'. I've omitted directorship, editing, production and special effects because most of the story is convey through either a) the characters; b) the acting or; c) the technical aspects that the two share. Let us examine the first of these categories: camera work.

I'm a big fan of how the camera is used in films. Sometimes it ads that extra punch, sometimes it leads to the detriment of a film. But, most of all, I can recognise and appreciate new and experimental ways that the camera can and is used. Of course, in saying that, I readily acknowledge that probably everything has been tried once before, and thus nothing is 'new'. But there are less-common uses of the camera, and that is what I deem the 'new'. Amélie has these new techniques, one could say, down pat; almost as if they had been used regularly. But what are they?

Let's start with the how the camera is used in Amélie. It's plays three roles - the first: it's the normal camera which tracks and documents our characters. That's no surprise. The second: every now and then the camera acts as a confessional for the characters. Amélie breaks down the fourth wall between film and audience (@00:11:16) when she tells us that she enjoys looking back in movie theatres, then a few seconds later, what she dislikes about films, and once again after playing her first 'game' with Nino (@01:13:57), then, in the closing stages of the film (@01:52:23). There are powerful implications for a film when it breaks down that wall - most importantly, the characters acknowledge that they are only movie characters, and that they really don't exist. Pending the film of course.

The third is in conjunction with the narrator, where it acts as an 'investigator' which seeks to show to us what information we need to know in order to become familiar with the characters and the story. From the start of the film to 00:09:12, we have a summary of Amélie's childhood, and sets the character up brilliantly to where we first meet her as an adult. Then, finally, the film's plot gets underway at 00:13:35. Up unto then, we are familiarised with the characters that are going to play a part. But not in the traditional sense of viewing them in a certain context. Rather, we are presented with them, and the camera is there to give us the information that is important for future events. The narrator's role is exceedingly important, though warrants a discussion on its own. But these tidbits of information don't just serve plot purpose - they give depth and a realisation for the audience of these secondary characters. Now the camera follows the journey through childhood, then weaves its way through each of the characters, stopping, in both parts, on the important players and with enough time so that we obtain a sense of who we are dealing with. We get a feel for each of the supporting cast - from Georgette, the hypochondriac, using some form of inhaler, who is presented alone to us in a mid-shot, up against a backing of the studiously organised and defined cigarettes behind her, thus defining neat and high-strung manner; to Joseph, looking away from the camera at all times with a scowl, a tight, close-shot, without changing emotion, when we are told he enjoys only one thing: popping bubble wrap.

The technical use of the camera in Amélie is fantastic as well. The camera, I have noticed, is usually moving - either following characters or zooming. This, for me, is an obvious symbol for the notion that the movie is concerned with change for the characters - a movement from the old to the new - and the moving camera is representative of this journey. The camera is moving because the characters are moving - physically, emotionally, psychologically. If the camera does come to a stop, most of the time it's a close-up on one of the characters. I would say that every close-up has a purpose in this film, and I'm not about to detail the hundreds of them. Generally though, they are to do with emotional states or in relation to their position in the journey - whether it's a character going through change, coming to a realisation or being introduced, as we see with the main and secondary characters.

There are a few high and low angle shots that are worthy of note as well. Amélie, after letting another chance of 'meeting' Nino, is put into her metaphorical context: the camera high above her, standing alone, made to look small and insignificant. She's realised that she is alone, really alone, and, with the events leading up to that point as a reference, because of her own actions. And, of course, the high to far camera movement of this shot is symbolic of the isolation and distance that Amélie has established herself in. It starts with a high shot over a canal, arcs down over Amélie, further down but still distant, then ends up (physically and metaphorically) a stone's throw away from her. The camera doesn't get close to her, and that's what it's like for the people around Amélie.

Generally, though, the camera work in Amélie excels because of the variety of ways we see Amélie through the camera. Perspective is of the utmost importance in this film. In many films, there's no importance between how we see the characters and what they are feeling (I find there is a reliance on the mid-shot in this case). I previously spoke about how the camera is distanced from Amélie regularly, and gave you an example. Many times the same example pops up time and time and time again, each with their own meaning, though all along the lines of the distance between Amélie and other characters.

Funnily enough, in situations where Amélie is in control, and should have the camera looking up at her, we find that she is put, again, further away, I believe this is symbolic of Amélie, again, still being distanced, while having control. But strangely, it's portraying her as having less power. While she is in control of the first 'game' that she plays with Nino, the view that Nino has of her when it is revealed (to him) he is being played by Amélie, this view, is deceptive. And the same happens when she is the store Nino works at. In fact, I don't think I've seen a steeper shot of a character in some time. She looks so small and insignificant, though she has all the control of the situation - she has the photo album. And here, in this shot, Raymond Dufayel, by the end of the film, holds more sway over Amélie than anyone would think (the painting I will discuss later), and while the argument could be made that it's only an establishing shot, Raymond is never given the positioning to discredit this. It's this playing around with the camera that makes Amélie so great in terms of the filming side. There's a heap of questions that I still need answers to in this film, but I don't exactly want them all solved at once. I enjoy thinking about a film, and I'm still thinking about Amélie. My best example is this shot (anyone who has seen the film will know the shot)

Garden State, if it suffers from anything in the camera department, is that it's very still, when compared to Amélie. Where the camera is always moving in Amélie, in Garden State the camera's movement, or lack of, is minimal. But it is important that it is this way. Where Amélie is a journey movie that doesn't stop, Garden State has the special quality of being a slow movie that can afford to stop. It's not as fast paced, and thus, it can afford to come to a stand still, and the audience can take everything in. This use of the camera is also a double-edge feature here - remember that Andrew Largeman is drugged into an emotionally 'dead' state, and would feel like everything is moving slow. Thus, the camera is inadvertently letting us into the mind of Andrew, who is experiencing the journey, rather than, as we see in Amélie, setting us on a journey of our own with the character's occurring at the same time and parallel to ours. For the best example of that, watch the opening minute-45 seconds - it's in slow motion, Andrew is the only person who isn't emotional on a crashing plane, and we are given a point-of-view shot to show that the camera is a perspective into Andrew.

Even MORE! new stuff from here.

The camera also sets up the important settings of Andrew. While the settings are important in Amélie, it's importance resides in the colours being used, which I will talk about later. For Garden State the settings, and thus 'feel' of the film, are set up through the way the camera is wielded. There isn't so much of a reliance on the close-up, as with Amélie, more it's an emphasis of putting things in perspective. The way that the wide-shot is used in Garden State is noticeably different to Amélie in that not only does it distance Andrew from everyone, but it also puts things into context - Andrew feels alone and disconnected (though hasn't gone there by choice, as Amélie has), and the way he is established in shots shows this. We have, again, high and distant shots of Andrew. As an example, when we first see Andrew after the dream sequence, we start with a view from the corner of the room furthest away from Andrew, then come to a shot right above, where, in cut stages, we get closer.

This shot gives me a nice segway into what the environment says about our characters. If you look at Andrew's bedroom, it's missing, well, everything. There's a phone and perhaps an electric shaver, besides the bed, and everything is white. It's a real sterile feel. The same can be said with the doctor's building that Andrew goes to, the waiting room (the colours of that room will become important later as well), and the airport bathroom. And ordered, where everything appears to be perfect, like Andrew's parent's bedroom, his medicine cabinet (and the secondary message behind that is pretty powerful as well), the L.A. freeway. Oh, and the airport, and another scene in the airport (when Andrew decides that he is returning home, and thus, returning back to where he began his journey) Colour just isn't present in any of these environments - well, the colour that we find in others and in Amélie. That is until we meet Sam, but that's for the next section.

For the technical side, the camera in Garden State is still and somewhat standard, though, as I explained before, it works to its advantage. When Andrew takes speed (I think it is) we get a nice little technique where Andrew is still lethargic and 'slow' but everyone else, rather than going at normal speed as they do when he is on his normal medication, they are all in fast-motion. The same effect occurs at the end of the film, when Andrew is on the plane and headed home, and it's a stark contrast to the slow-motion effect used on the plane in the opening scene. What this does is symbolises the change in perspective - Andrew hasn't changed, but the way he views the world has. He's stopped taking his ill-prescribed medication, and now he can see that the world is this fast-paced race, and, through all this, he's still the same person.

And perspective, well, the use of that in Garden State is really for totally different purposes than we see in Amélie. Garden State uses this to make everyone out to be smaller - not the centre of the world, but rather, a real human being on the world, with a real life. When Andrew has finally sorted out his problems (mostly), and the plot needs to tie them up neatly, and show the audience that they've all come to some sort of resolution that we want them to have arrived at, but additionally, that Andrew is in charge of his own future and self now. We get a scene that does all that: it starts with a mid-shot of the three characters, then zooms-out, and out, and out. And all this was preluded by a high shot of the three characters, symbolic that where once they were mastered by their situation, after that zoom-out shot, they are the masters of the situation

So what film can possibly win this point? Well, for the technical side, it is just so hard to split. Garden State is, for the most part, is an independent film - it's written, directed and staring Zach Braff. It's financed by Miramax, who aren't one of the two giants in Hollywood, so there's that freedom for the production team. But Amélie brings the foreign flavours of film to us. It takes ventures that you don't see in Hollywood that much anymore. That certainly helps it's grab at the point, but is dampened by the fact that Garden State can use the traditional camera works, that Amélie discards, and makes them seem unique and original. So, my decision, Amélie gets a point. But Garden State gets one and a half points for the fact that, yes, the film manages to make unique of what is standard. This is because they both deserve the credit of this category, but Garden State gets that little bit extra.

Score:
Amélie [3]
Garden State [3.5]

Where to now? Well, I've touched upon it before now - colours. Starting with Amélie, it's best done by just showing you one picture - this. It's the poster of the film. Look at the four base colours there - black, white, red and green. Those are what the film really comes down to. Red is the most popular colour in this film, quickly followed by the green. Red denotes passion, it denotes love and those emotions. And you find it all through the film. The reddest place in the film Amélie's room. Every wall is red, everything in the room is red, even Amélie is red. Red red red. What does this say? If Amélie has surrounded herself in red, even dresses in it, then she has the love she is searching for in her already. And, because she's not seeking it out in the form of people, she's surrounded herself in the environment. The green we see in Amélie is sometimes pretty dirty and grungy. Mr. Collignon, the mean and cruel grocer, his apartment is this grungy green, and really looks like it could do with a clean. Where he works, and how he makes his assistant dress (who he runs down all day) is green as well. And going back to that arcing shot of Amélie on the canal, skipping stones, there's only one non-green thing in the shot: Amélie.

Black and white is used in the traditional sense of shading - how can any film avoid shadows and light? But colours are pretty simple to understand in Amélie - and even simpler when you're using two. They are self-explanatory, and really create the warm or cold feel of the film. When emotion should be evoked within the audience, the red is flooding the screen, it's warmer and it's related to what's going on with the characters. The green that's used makes it cold, emotionally dead and gives an insight into the characters that are associated with green.

Garden State uses colour to contrast where we've been and where we can go. For Andrew, it's the opposite in terms of his journey. Where the audience sees no, or little colour, we are viewing where we first meet Andrew - in his dead, bland, drugged world. But when we meet Sam, and the doorway to a new place (both for Andrew's emotional state and for the destination for his journey) is opened. But before that, the film is cold - and it still has points where it is, after we've met Sam. I guess that this is because of the conflicting state of mind that Andrew is in. The two go from a warm shared scene in a bathtub (referenced next) to a scene where they appear to be leaving one another - and, of course, it's in a very hostile setting for emotions and colour.

Sam's entrance into the film brings with it colour and, ultimately, a change in emotions for Andrew. We first see Sam in the same waiting room that I've described as sterile and 'dead'. But she isn't dressed to look like a chair (serious, I think he is dressed to fit in - brown pants, the same shade of green shirt). She's different to what we've seen so far - 'dead' settings, ordered, organised and confined. Then we are taken to her house, which is just as colourful and just as 'random' (that picture gets random because you can see the year-old Christmas tree and the labyrinth of hamster tubing) as this strange girl we've just met - and strange in a good way. There's something strange about everyone in this film, but few are likable-strange (that picture is only explained by the film). In the end, we see that Sam is the catalyst for change for Andrew; she brings the spark, that his medication has put out, back into him, and this is all symbolic in the colours.

Two of the warmest scenes just happen to occur when Sam is with Andrew. When the two share a moment by the fireplace, after swimming in the pool, isn't only warm because of the fire, but because of the colours it throws out - the oranges and the yellows are quite inviting. The next is where Andrew finally opens up and lets all of his pent up emotions out, finally. He sits in a bathtub with Sam, and it has a similar colouring to the fireplace scene. When a scene in a bathroom, the characters wet from rain, could easily come off as cold and uninviting, the colouring manages to turn that right around.

But, between these two movies, Amélie comes out ahead. The vibrancy of the two colours, and only two, is just amazing. That's not to say everything else has been blacked out, but these two, and the way they are worked in and around every other colour is quite elegant. for all it's value, uses and suffers from normal Hollywood techniques, which is something that does surprise and hurts me. For all of the seperation between Garden State and Hollywood that exist, it falls short on this key element. And for Amélie, the colours are what do set this film above others, and really deserves the point. The colours, for both films, could do with an in-depth discussion in relation to each character, but this has already grown into a monster of a post, so I won't bore.

Score:
Amélie [4]
Garden State [3.5]

What is the rest? Well, it's the mixbag of what else make these films good. Overt subtlety is what I like to call some of the elements in Garden State and Amélie. They are overt in that they are readily available, but subtle because you have to know what they mean, and they might not be so obvious as you see them (or perhaps you have to wait until the end of the film). Either way, the two films are full of them. The image of Andrew in a mirror is a classic representation of a character of his type - split, undecided, lost. And contrast the life that's portrayed by these two scenes - driving down an L.A. freeway and driving down a New Jersey freeway. There's no hustle and bustle and stress and 'tightness'.

It's difficult to compare the 'way of life' that Amélie presents because it's an idealised, dream-like Paris that's being portrayed. So, instead, I'll turn to the pseudo special effects that come into play. There is a scene where we need to know that Amélie has obtained a copy of a key to Mr. Collignon's room key. The outline of it is highlighted in gold while it sits, hidden, in Amélie's pocket. A similar effect is used when she sees Nino for the second time and has realised that she does have feeling for him. Her heart, shown to us, beats at a rapid rate. This effect is used to give us critical information that, otherwise, the all-important narrator would have told us. So what the heck is this shot doing? I have my suspicions (and it relates to the obvious religious undertones), but I don't like to venture such far guesses concerning films. I like to deal with what I know.

The lighting in both films is somewhat important, less so in Garden State. It's possible to read too much into Amélie and its use of lighting, I believe. It is used to show Amélie making realisations about herself and those around her, such as when we, along with her, first view Raymond Dufayel from her window. The only light shining onto Amélie at this point is coming from Raymond's room. Answers, for Amélie's and our questions, lie within.

Garden State's use of lighting is merely for effect as I see it. The most interesting one is when we greet Andrew waking up from a party he attended through the night. Other than that, there isn't a whole lot to point out. But I'm not disappointed at that - there is a tendency these days to try and deliver too much information through lighting that it has become a cliche. Filmmakers should realise that the original Star Wars perfected the art of lighting and need to leave it there. Similarly they did it with costumes, but as there is nothing really of note in that department in either film (other than the red clothes that Amélie wears and the green clothes that Mr. Collignon wears, on par with the aforementioned colouring) I won't dwell on that point.

Returning to the overt subtle, I enjoyed a particular scene in Amélie that I brought up just a moment ago. Amélie looks out her window, down to Raymond painting. Note that Amélie is looking through a lens. The painting that Raymond is working on will become a metaphor for Amélie's life later on in the film where both characters talk about Amélie, though neither really knowing (or at least acknowledging) that they are talking about her. "The girl with the glass in the middle" is the character in the painting that they discuss, which, funnily enough, Amélie becomes in this shot later - in between the artist and the canvas. And, note, that she's holding a glass. Again, when the two discuss the painting/Amélie, she is holding a glass. Mulled wine I believe she drinks.

But, what I found interesting about what started me on that metaphor talk, was that Amélie was looking at herself, and through a lens. This works in two ways - one: she is looking at the world through a lens, not actually letting herself be part of what is out there. Two: she is already looking at her own person through a lens (as we are do note), just as the painting will become a lens into her own self.

Amélie has a few amusing moments, but they are in reference to characters, and generally important details to the plot in some strange way. Also, Amélie has many moments when you find yourself smiling at something or someone. But Garden State has actual comedy elements. There are some rather funny points in the film where it's in there purely for a laugh. And there is just the right amount so that it doesn't turn me (a person who doesn't have a pure comedy film in my Top 50 I expect - I disagree that they can be quality movies, but that's just my opinion) off it. For Garden State the comedy is subtle, but overt.

So who gets what, if any, points for this category? Garden State gets one for all the little things in it that make it good. But Amelie gets at least two (I was tempted to go so far as three) for including the painting and the metaphor. A student of English, I always loved a metaphor because not only did it take up so many lines to explain, but it was something that could be discussed and actually developed the film, as well as adding more depth and another layer to everything that was going on. I want to give Garden State more recognition that I have in this category, in fact, I think I'll give it half a point because of the details that it includes for the sake of the plot and the sake of creativity. But, ultimately, Amélie walks out on top with two points. Which brings us to the final score ...

Score:
Amélie [6]
Garden State [5]

So Amélie walks out on top, on what some may think is a closer margin that what others would get if comparing one of their all-time favourite films with their number eight favourite. Honestly, I'm not surprised. So fickle is my favouritism that my list changes order regularly. But the list of ten generally stays the same, and my top five haven't changed for some time as well. So to have only a point between them was, for me, predictable. And don't let this one point deride Garden State in any way what-so-ever. It is a terrific film about love, the emotional journey of one man who doesn't like where he is, nor does he even know, and the unique and colourful characters that surround him (and ultimately us). But Amélie manages to tell it's story with that little bit more ... something. It's that undefinable something in Amélie that will always separate it from other movies. Anyone who has seen it knows what I'm talking about. It's a beautiful film, so simple, but, as we've seen (or I've told you) it's somewhat complex when you take it apart. I encourage everyone to try and see both of these films and try and compare them to this level in less than 8774 words.

I hope that the wait didn't put anyone off reading this. I can see why the length would have. Seriously, I applaud anyone who managed to go through it all. I would appreciate any sort of feedback on this - even a contrast in opinions on either/both films. If this type of post proves to be successful, I'll go and do the next one I had planned. I've always wanted a theme to my blog; perhaps movies is that elusive theme. If the recommendation comes in that people want similar, but shorter, posts to this then I totally understand and would, in all reality, prefer to write shorter ones. But, as I hope you've seen, these two films are standout, classics (in my mind, where they are also filed under under-appreciated) and worthy of the in-depth analysis I've given it (though, admittedly, I've only scratched the surface on some of the elements). Thanks.

Thomas.

2007-06-26T16:15:00.000+10:00

Here is a screenshot of the edit posts tab that Blogger has. Of note, I'd like to draw your attention to a particular draft i had in the works that would have been published in the next few days, but noticeably, the date I had first started it.

Screenshot.

I expanded it so that you can see what I was going to writing about.

Screenshot again.

TodayTonight STOLE MY IDEA!!! Seriously, I was about to write about how predictable these so-called """shows"""" (I cannot emphasise enough these are not real shows) were becoming and before I can even call them predictable they go and fulfill my idea. I was slightly bummed, but mostly pleased, when I saw the ad where the TodayTonight """reporters""" (nor can I emphasise enough how far these people fall short of being real reporters) go to re-interview that weather-nut.

I guess all that this goes to show is that TodayTonight and ACA can prove themselves to be predictable, unoriginal and stupid without the aid of some blogger who hates them. Then again, I'm just one person who hates the shows among the thousands. So how stupid must the people be who watch them? And these are, no doubt, voting Australians. Woe-is-me.

I'm not going to watch it, of course, just like I didn't watch the first report. But I thought I'd just like to draw attention to the semi-irony of the whole thing. Thank-you for your time.

Thomas.

2007-06-24T17:02:00.001+10:00

In addition to the list of posts that I'm going to be completing through the holidays, the first is now Bucks 'Party!' 2007. It happened last night, it was crazy and quite a bit of fun, and the stories will amaze the masses. Maybe.

Expect it Tuesday.

Thomas.

2007-06-22T17:43:00.000+10:00

I think I've been banned from the kitchen, and preparing food, for the final time tonight. If so, I'm certainly not mourning this loss. I'll celebrate it later tonight in fact. But for now, I must be content with my mother preparing my food after being turned off from my 'style' of cooking.

See, I was supposed to make some sort of salad for dinner tonight. I brought up my regular argument of "Why does food need so much attention if you're just going to eat it?" I then said that we shouldn't bother with a salad, or if we absolutely had to, we should do this ...

I proceeded to pick up the head of lettuce and took a bite out of the side. I chewed away as my mother looked on, stunned. I smiled then grabbed a cucumber and took a bite out of the side as well. Chewing away my mother forcibly removed me from the kitchen talking about how I'm uncouth and uncivilised and am never to tread foot on the kitchen tiles again. I started to laugh when I leaned up against a wall, looking at a head of lettuce and a cucumber with chunks missing. It was quite the sight. I should have taken some photos, Samuel-esque style.

I still would be happy if my mother dumped the crisper shelf on the dinner table in preparation for tea every night. Then she, my father, my sister and I could just grab what we want and eat as much as we want. There's things I don't like in a salad that someone else might, so nothing will really go to waste. And the novelty value! It would get kids eating veggies if they had to fight for bits and eating were fun.

Of course, I fully support the cooking and preparation of livestock and meats. I couldn't eat them raw. Though sushi I have been known to consume and enjoy, so perhaps, along with knives and forks, a fish scaler and a bucket for the guts could be supplied?

I could have stumbled upon a new idea for a restaurant. Or is that called a farm? Meh.

Thomas.

Note: No, the parts of the food that I 'defiled' were not served in the salad that was made by more 'caring' hands.

2007-06-22T16:55:00.000+10:00

There are a list of things that, really, you just don't want to happen when you have an exam on that day. Serious bodily harm can result in an extension, as can tragedy and 'misadventure'. But I know that some people have been refused the chance to sit an exam because they missed a train or bus. So, imagine my feelings of joy* when, after not having to use NSW's awful public transport system for roughly two and a half weeks, the first train I need to take to get to an exam is ... well, I'll let my transcript say it all:

"The 7:37 train to the city has been *slight pause, everyone gasped* canceled for today.*

I heard this after just buying my ticket and walking up the stairs of East Hills station after deciding I wouldn't rush for the earlier train that I saw getting ready to leave the station (it was an all stop, which by the timetable, would have got me to Redfern later than my intended train). Isn't that just how things go? I hadn't had a problem with any trains in some time, and if I had, I wouldn't have cared because, frankly, lectures are about as entertaining as a Kevin Smith film (sorry Andrew, had to do it haha). But exams are a whole different kettle of fish. They are compulsory.

Yet another fantastic encounter with CityRail, even after the budget promised that things would be on the improve. Well, I know you have to give these things time, but Mr. Costa certainly wasn't my friend, nor Mr. Iemma or his cronies in charge of public transport. Why couldn't O'Farrell have run during the last election? Damn Liberal honchos.

Thomas.

*When I say joy, I really mean horror

2007-06-20T11:39:00.001+10:00

I have lots of already lengthy posts in draft form, but exam mode has finally kicked in, and they will stay there, most likely until the 26th. Expect one or two come Friday evening, but other than that, sporadic posting ahead.

Thomas.

2007-06-16T23:02:00.001+10:00

I know that, some while ago, I did a post linking to all the photos that I took of the 18 Cup on my trip to Europe, but only realised this week that I never got around to showing any of the 700+ others of the generic tourist things. So accept this as the post that should have gone up a long time ago containing most of my favourite photos. They are in no particular order, though are grouped together per content.

A warning, a lot of these are just photos without the 18 Cup in it. But, then again, some of them aren't.

I believe I took the most photos at Gallipoli, and a few selections of them include the two I took at Anzac Cove here and here. The memorial at Lone Pine and the well preserved Gallipoli trenches were two highlights among the many. Of course, I was obliged to pay a visit to John Simpson's place of rest as well. And, to my surprise, I found this. I hadn't done any specific research on what I'd find at Gallipoli before I went because, well, I thought I knew what I'd find. But the big monument, which has Ataturk's famous letter to the mothers of the Anzacs who had died in the Gallipoli campaign was a surprise, and a welcome one. My great-uncle, who was traveling with my grandfather and me, had never heard of it, and when he read it, shed a tear and was really moved by it. The long story short behind us going there is that we had a distant relation (that my grandfather knew as a child) fight there and survive, only to die on the Western Front. Reading the monument had a similar effect on me, and ever since, I can't read it without feeling that familiar lump in my throat.

I get the most requests from family and friends to talk about Auschwitz, followed by seeing the photos. I think sometimes my response disappoints people. I guess that people have different experiences there, and me not exactly being the greatest at expressing emotional experiences, might sell what I did actually feel there short. Anyway, I took photos of the main gate (which was eerie to walk through) and of the haunting main building at Auschwitz-Birkenau, as well as some spur of the moment ones. This is looking down one of the many fences within the Auschwitz camp. Block 11 in the Auschwitz camp was the prison within the prison, and between it and Block 10 was a non-visible (all windows looking into the yard, as well as the entry and exit were boarded up) as it was where prisoners were shot. I took this photo of the area not because I could but because there were people laying wreaths there as we came. It was, really, the only colour you could find in the entire place.

At Auschwitz-Birkenau, you were allowed to go into the main building and look out at that horrific place. This was a photo looking out to the fields. Each chimney was a building that would 'house' hundreds, sometimes thousands, of prisoners. That was only looking out to the right. This is looking out to the left. This photo is looking out the centre windows, where one can sees the train tracks leading into the camp, where the prisoners would 'disembark'. I'm not going to retell the horror stories that could go with the photo because everyone knows them all.

I took photos inside of the prisoner blocks and of the outside of the gas chambers, but I don't want to post them.

Onto something more lively, well, lively in mind, not physically. I enjoy taking photos of statues, probably because you don't have to worry about them moving or blinking. Anyway, the British Museum is great for that, as is a trip through Italy. This is a statue in Pompeii (and boy are there many of them). At the British Museum, two examples (and I took a whole heap of photos of "old stuff" as my younger viewers have deemed it) of the exhibitions I saw are this Egyptian statue, this Greek one, as well as this Greek temple (?). Of course, how could I not take a photo of the Rosetta Stone. I did an assignment about it for the HSC and scored ridiculously high marks on it, and since then I've always wanted to go and see it (perhaps to say thank-you?).

Taking photos of the Statue of David is banned (someone explained it to my father and I the first time we saw it, but the reasoning eludes me). The temptation to take a photo, for my father, was too much, and he managed to snap off a few before we left. The challenge had been laid down to me, so of course I took a photo ... and was promptly thrown out. Luckily I took it after I had gandered all over the place, so i wasn't heartbroken. In fact, I was rather pleased - I was thrown out of the Accademia Gallery.

I saw this nice, entertaining statue in Singapore. I liked it. A lot of the people I've shown it to didn't, or at least didn't 'get' it. But what's to 'get' about simple things?

The Trevi Fountain in Rome. It's a strange thing. Before I saw it on my first trip, I was slightly excited to see it. Then when I did see it, i said "So what, it's just a fountain". Then, this second time, it was actually impressive. Perhaps it was my impetuous youth speaking the first time, but regardless, I took two of my favourite photos there. This is a wide shot of the fountain, while this was a close-up side shot of the main statue of Neptune.

When you go to Rome, the thing everyone visits is the Coliseum. This was my second visit (I just love an opportunity to brag), and I took as many photos as my parents did the first time. This is from the second tier looking down at the arena, while this is also from the second tier, looking straight ahead (from the opposite side to the first).

The next place that people go to in Rome? The Vatican. I know, not an official part of Italy, but it's there, and people go. I went, and it was alright. I wasn't expecting a whole lot (other than the Sistine Chapel), and that's sort of what I got - nothing too flash. I was impressed by the size of everything. The building, especially St. Peter's Basilica, is huge! This is a photo of the outside. Seriously, inside, the columns and the interior hoo-ha is unbelievably massive.

Florence yielded many photos for two reason. One, it really is a picturesque place (even though I don't really like being there). Two, no one in my family had been to Florence when it rained. I was 'lucky' enough to be the first to get the rain. But, regardless, I got many photos of, really, the same cityscape. So, to save on your's and mine's time, I'll show you my favourite of the lot. This. Why is it the favourite? Because you can see the Duomo and Campanile (that thing that looks like it has a terracotta roof), the Ponte Vecchio (that big bridge over the river) and the rest of the city.

Venice is, quite possibly, my most favourite place on Earth. I made a point to go back because it's so foreign to be there. There's no cars, no road, nothing that you expect back home. You can really escape the world when you go there. That's my feelings anyway. And my opinion hasn't been changed by those people who slander the place for this or that (whether they've been there or not), and it never will. I became so 'wrapped' by the place that I hardly took any pictures. This is a photo from the Rialto bridge, looking down the Grand Canal. This is just one of the hundreds of canals that you pass. I thought it sort of summed up my time there: a quiet, secluded part of the world with no hustle or bustle of home, where you could just go to relax.

Going to Stonehenge is a funny story that I'll probably write about one day soon. This is one of the dozens of photos I took of it as you walk around it. It was freezing there, so walking around took us a whole of fifteen minutes haha.

And that's about it. I had a heap more photos, and some of things I haven't mentioned above. But, for the most part, what I have linked to are my favourite photos. Credit to anyone who I forced to sit through all 750+ of them, and more to people who want to see them all of their own volition. But I doubt I'll find too many of them any more. Maybe one day I'll get around to at least uploading a single photo of everywhere I'd been, but that's a task for the holidays.

Thomas.

Note: This layout sort of sucks in terms of showing a link. It's a light-ish brown in amidst all the black font. For the most part, I linked to photos on the word "this". Sometimes it was specific words, like "Lone Pine" or "Gallipoli trenches". Maybe, as you read, you should run you cursor over the line if you have trouble. If anyone does find locating links a hard task, say so and the layout will be gone.

2007-06-16T14:25:00.001+10:00

I'm in the process of redesigning the layout. This isn't how it's going to be from here on in, so don't despair. It's only that I've a more pressing matter to deal with right now.

Edit: I'm going to settle on this. For future reference, please don't lose your glasses again haha. I enjoyed fiddling too much to be able to stave off doing it again.

Thomas.

2007-06-15T21:15:00.001+10:00

This is late (in terms of how quickly one can get news these days) in T.V. land, but it's something that I only just found out today. Any longterm reader of this blog will know that I'm an avid watcher of television, and of all the shows that I hold most dear Boston Legal is one of them. I've talked about it being a good show and then ways in which it has improved. I've covered all topics that I thought needed covering.

Lo and behold, I found a topic that I needed to talk about. No, it's not that the show has increasingly become "The Alan Shore & Denny Crane politics Show" (something that it has actually become) ...

Before I get into detail about it, I'll preface this with a little 'viewing rule' that I have. Knowing full well that T.V. shows are T.V. shows, and that they are all competing for ratings, and that death-scenes of favourite characters garner the highest ratings (usually), I invest my 'attachment' into many characters. This ensures that when one of my favourites are written out of a show, I still have other favourites that I'm watching a show for. So, let me list the people (in order) that I'm 'invested' in for season one of Boston Legal:

- Sally Sweep, played by Lake Bell
- Brad Chase, played by Mark Valley
- Alan Shore, played by James Spader
- Lori Colson, played by Monica Potter
- Denny Crane, played by William Shatner

By the end of the first season, Lake Bell had left, Five episodes into the second season, Monica Potter had left. Also, early in season two, Tara Wilson (who played Rhona Mitra) had left as well. The show, thankfully, introduced new, full time characters to replace those that left. Denise Bauer (played by Julie Bowen), Shirley Schmidt (played by Candice Bergen), Sara Holt (played by Ryan Michelle Bathe) and Garrett Wells (played by Justin Mentell) were all progressively brought into the show. As well, Paul Lewiston (played by Rene Auberjonois) was fleshed out as a character (spoken about here), and built up in a way that made you want to see him take on a case or have something to do with a plot line because you knew it would be serious then. I weighed up my stock options and invested in the following:

- Denise Bauer
- Brad Chase
- Alan Shore

This was around the time where, as I linked to earlier, I thought the show was taking a turn for the worst. But, by the end of the season, a new character had been introduced that grabbed my attention and got me hooked more-so than I was before. Michael J. Fox landed a reoccurring role as Daniel Post, which thankfully stretched to this latest season, but ... well, I'll get to that later. Marlene Stanger (played by Parker Posey) was such an interesting character and so 'effective' in the environment (in terms of in and out of character) that, after blogging about her, I re-did my favourites list:

- Marlene Stanger
- Denise Bauer
- Brad Chase
- Daniel Post
- Alan Shore
- Denny Crane

But, come season three, well, it really was a strange turn of events. In no particular order, Garrett Wells, Sara Holt, and Marlene Stanger had all been written out. Brad Chase hardly appeared, as was the case with Denise Bauer and Paul Lewiston. The worst part of all that: Marlene Stanger was gone! The Squid, who had peaked my interest in the show after four episodes was headed for the New York branch. I thought the show was doomed, and more-so when I heard that more new characters were being written in. Jeffrey Coho (played by Craig Bierko) and Claire Simms (played by Constance Zimmer) managed to dispel any fear of them adding negativity to the show, as their characters (of particular note: Jeffrey Coho) revived the show and headed it in a new direction. My new list became:

- Jeffrey Coho
- Denise Bauer
- Brad Chase
- Daniel Post
- Claire Simms
- Alan Shore
- Denny Crane

Of course, Paul Lewiston was interesting to see come and go, and Shirley Schmidt, yeah, interesting enough. Anyway, generally, the show was at it's peak, and above all, had more characters that I liked than ever before.

Daniel Post received an increased role ... then he was killed off.

Then last week's episode came along and Jeffrey Coho left.

Then I got news today: the following character have been written out of the show for season four:

- Denise Bauer
- Brad Chase
- Claire Simms
- Paul Lewiston

In one fell swoop, five of my favourite characters were gone, and a fringe member was out the door with them. My list then became:

- Alan Shore
- Denny Crane

Thus, as I hinted at before, the show truly has become the Alan and Denny show. I loved Boston Legal, but I don't love it so much that I could stand it just centering around the same three characters doing the same three things every week. I liked the show, as of late, not because it was the same old left vs. right or Republican vs. Democrat debates between Denny and Alan (which had become stale and boring in my opinion) but because I could watch as multiple other plots unfolded and took shape that interested me to no end.

People are going to say that Denise and Brad did little-to-no lawyer-stuff towards the end. This is true. But will they stop to think that them not doing the lawyer-stuff gave people a break from every other character that was doing it? And Jeffrey, well, people have already said that he was written out because he was 'competition' to the Alan Shore character. That is no reason to get rid of him! Far out, it should serve for the writers to invest more in him if anything! Play the two off each other, mess around with them, keep them on each other's heels. Just make sure they encounter one another at least once in the hour!

Claire, well, she would be the one you would write out if you were having a minor cast shuffle-up. But when you're losing three of your longest-serving cast members (with Mark Valley having been on the show since day one) you don't cut out one of the more interesting characters who, again, gave viewers away time from Alan and Denny doing their same old thing.

By having the centre of attention on Denny and Alan, the show became predictable. I said it before, and it's going to happen again. The show become like a formula:

Alan takes on a case that allows him to voice his dissenting, anti-Bush, Democratic opinion -> Alan then voices his opinion throughout the show, resulting in a disagreement with Denny -> Alan makes a grandiose closing to his case, summing up why the Republicans and Bush are bad -> Alan wins the case -> Alan sits on Denny's balcony, the two smoke a cigar and drink whiskey as the show fades out.

Denise, Brad, Jeffrey, Paul, Claire, Daniel, Marlene, Lori and Sally all made the show unpredictable and watchable. Each and every one of those characters will be gone by the next season, and they are likely to never return. Thankfully Shirley is still there, with a hotch-potch bunch of characters that don't interest me in the slightest, as well as two, soon-to-be named characters that will join the firm. But it doesn't matter. I've now lost every character that I've really shown an interest in that wasn't Alan or Denny, who are slowly driving me up the wall. The question is, for me, will I be watching much of the fourth season, or until all of my favourites are gone? Season five does indeed seem a daunting task to undertake right now ...

Thomas.

2007-06-15T20:51:00.000+10:00

I do enjoy America's favourite pastime of bowling. I enjoy it quite a bit actually.

Today I went bowling with my friend Andrew. It's certainly they most demanding sport that either of us could handle. Today was not Andrew's day. In fact, it wasn't his month or year. He does have good rounds often, though today, with the rain, the moon and the ring of Saturn all working against him, he was behind the eight ball from the get-go.

I, on the other hand, bowled the greatest game of my life. 209 in the first game. 2-0-9! That's nearer to a perfect 300 game than to a toddler-no-bumpers game of 0. I'd never broken the 200 mark before, and on my last bowl, I hit a 9, leaving one pin standing from the strike. I hit four strikes on the trot somewhere, and didn't not hit a pin in each frame. And there were only two frames where I didn't get a spare of a strike. I was quite proud of my achievements.

By the end of the three games I had bowled over 500, with my two others games notching up approx. 170 and 150. I appeared to go from best to worse as the games went on strangely enough. But, you know, you can't be choosy about these things. 209 I'll take any day, any game. I'd like to say that I'm going to try and set out to beat it, you know, to instill some sort of motivation or goal in my life, but even I know I won't be getting close to it again. It was just one of those days at the alley I guess.

Thomas.

2007-06-12T22:29:00.000+10:00

I decided that, instead of doing my university assignment, I'd troll through the mountain of results after Googling the name of my old high school, East Hills Boy Technology High. Deep into the results I found (what I think is) a very interesting link. Following the link will take you to a page where there is a strip of head shots towards the bottom. The first person from the left side was my years 11 and 12 economics teacher, Mr. Jacobs.

I guess he must have had a bit of knowledge to be appointed to that position, chairperson of all places. If only I could remember anything that we talked about it that class ...

Actually, I do remember a bit from the two years, but really, only two things stand out: how good a guy Mr. Jacobs was, and how he would always, without hesitation or doubt, engage in a debate about how awful and 'wrong' communism. I think that he only did so to pull the chains of the people who towed the Red line - a pair of twins from China who said that it was the greatest economic and social theory to date.

If I had any real interest in the subject, like a few of the people in the class, then having Mr. Jacobs for the subject would have been equivalent to having the greatest economist as your teacher. But even though I wasn't, I still managed to score rather high with my marks, understand a heck of a lot of (what I now see as) complicated jibber jabber, and turn it into a contributing subject to my UAI.

I also remember that he was very much against the ideas, that are soon-to-be policy, of 'reward schemes' for paying teachers. I can distinctly remember the topic coming up a couple of times in class, and Mr. Jacobs had a very good argument against it. A shame I can't remember it now. It was probably similar to what everyone else says about the idea though.

Anyway, this is just a mindless ramble. I'll close with something meaningful I guess. A good teacher goes a long way. How's that?

Thomas.

2007-06-12T17:08:00.000+10:00

Over the past few months I've kept track of a few search terms that people have (most of the time) Googled, that has led them to this blog. I know, I'm ripping off the idea, but at least it's a post, right?

Socialist alternative alternative
Deus Lo Vult means
tom watson university of sydney nick wood
Picnic Point Bowling Club
apprentice season 5 10 terek
alma torlakovic
sydney uni commerce
south africa chokers
wolli creek
andrew quah
swallowed listerine
what does it mean "well viewed"
lenny veltman
rude to wear hats in house
link:http://bigpicture.typepad.com
colbert wrap rage episode
simon fontana
those word (#1 result if you search at Naver for that!)
appear (Same as above!)
generic blog posts
#1 - MSN, #4 - YouTube, #49 - AdultFriendFinder, #145 NYTimes (Soso search engine #1)
msn 220 youtube 196 visits
Jones intelligent design
centrist politics president
one interesting fact that happened on may 17
patanela
swallowed listerine accident
patanela dvd
turkey -christmas -thanksgiving -meal -lunc
usyd blogspot easthills boys
landmarks/tourist,spots of england
http://www.christianchapel.net/robsCMS/read.php?id=45 - AND french
swallowed listerine
adultfriendfinder singapore banned
hoax "account officer of my deceased client"
what kind of commison should i pay to rent a home
Lenny Veltman
wharfie 1 vs 100 rich list
leading up (Naver search engine)
CITYRAIL (Naver search engine)
monitors displaying next train sydney cityrail station
henri penn
honi soit socialist alternative
leading up to
yahoo7.com/the rich list
bears beets battlestar galactica explanation
aeneid desktop background
"station lockers" 9/11
10 interesting facts about uae
donnie darko information interesting facts
song deus vult
total war deus lo vult

Anyone who has regularly read this blog could probably identify actual posts that the results would have led to. All of the above were copied from the search field, so those spelling problems aren't mine.

Next post will be about how much I loathe and hate Telstra. Obviously I've got my phone line back, but it looks like they are going to have to come back out to fix whatever they didn't fix this time.

Thomas.

2007-06-09T11:49:00.000+10:00

Only Sydney University would be so ... pretentious?

Example 1

Example 2

Example 3

Example 4

They have webcams overlooking their construction sites for the oh-so many inquisitive minds that are actually interested in the Campus 2010 project. Or is it 2015 now? It certainly isn't 2010 with the progress being made.

The latest photos aren't exactly great examples, because it is teaming down with rain today. It's been raining so much I'm half expecting to see Noah sail by the second story window here. Crazy weather huh? I guess it means that with so many other people having power and phone problems, my loss of landline and Internet connection doesn't rank high with Telstra (yes, I've lost Internet access once again, with one last assessment and exams coming up).

Anyway, back to the construction works at Sydney. They started in '05 I believe (I know that for my first year the giant hole in the ground used to be a little park) and have been going since - that means digging a massive hole, concreting the sides, and now they are putting scaffolding up. Eventually the building that is the final product will be the world's biggest glass house. I don't expect it to last long with all the 'stone throwing' that will inevitably happen. This is Sydney Uni after all. Whether it's the lecturers saying something outrageous or some student body meeting about saving the world and hating capitalism, only to then go and indulge in some form of capitalism themselves. Idiots.

If things do get finished by 2010, that means that upon my (supposed) graduation, the place will finally be finished. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing - it's quite an enjoyable distraction watching unionised workers mill around from Fisher, knowing that even in my second year of a degree I'm more educated and, thus, far above them. And that's not just because I'm looking ten plus stories down at them.

Thomas.

2007-06-04T15:09:00.000+10:00

With such big hitters as Obama, Clinton and Edwards leading the charge for the Democrat's presidential position, it was really a count down until they started really getting into it. At the latest Democratic debate (only the second televised), at St. Anselm College in New Hampshire (of course), between all of the Democrats in the running, it was a chance for everyone to tackle the election-deciding issue of Iraq. Keeping tabs on the big three about Iraq would appear to be simple: Democrats don't want the war, thus they would all oppose it. Then everyone remembers that a heck of a lot of them voted for the use of military force in Iraq. That includes Hilary and Edwards, who voted for the Iraq Resolution as Senate members.

And here's where Barrack Obama has the advantage among Democratic voters and anti-war Republicans - he opposed the war from the get-go, back when he was a member of the Illinois Senate in '02. And Obama continued to do so; most vocally in his keynote address of the '04 Democratic National Convention. At the same time, it was this speech that speared him towards voter popularity and, eventually, his presidential campaign.

Edwards tried to take soft shots at all his competitors for the Democratic vote by saying they weren't "leaders" in opposing the Iraq war, to which Obama had the most effective reply to the Senator:

“The fact is that I opposed this war from the start. So you’re about four and a half years late on leadership on this issue.”

How more effective could you say 'I told you so' than that? And it was worded in a way so as to not sound pompous or rude, but that it was God's honest truth. And it is. Edwards should have taken a page from Clinton's play-book here and tried to skirt the issue. Instead, he allowed Obama to, for the debate (and the rest of the race if he keeps up with such rhetoric) to take the charge and the "leadership" role in the anti-war camp. Bad move for Edwards, great opportunity for Obama. Clinton, using her smarts, decided not to point out internal candidate's differences, but looked to the wider, future presidential-context, setting:

“This is George Bush’s war. And what we are trying to do, whether it’s by speaking out from the outside or working and casting votes that actually make a difference from the inside, we are trying to end the war.”

Of course, Edwards' plan was to try and steal votes from his much more popular and much more 'able' opponents:

“There are differences between us. And I think Democratic voters deserve to know the differences between us. I think there is a difference between making very clear when the crucial moment comes, on Congress ending this war, what your position is, and standing quiet.”

Good idea, if you're from the Obama school, and not if you voted to get the war going. Of course, if Clinton or Edwards get up with the primaries, then there's going to have to be a whole lot of dancing lessons taken, or at least excuses thought up as to why they, in fact, voted for the war in the first place, if all they are going to do now is act the 'hypocrite' (Republican's word, not mine) and say that the war is no good.

Of course, that tactic should be avoided at all costs while they are running the primaries. Obama will always hold the trump card in that debate, with Clinton refusing to repudiate her Iraq vote and saying that if she knew then what she knows now, she would change her vote. Funnily enough, she may have know enough then to vote differently. Senator Bob Graham of Florida, who at the time was the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, voted against the Iraq Resolution in 2002 citing the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq as a reason for his vote. Now, is Senator Clinton telling us that she didn't read the Estimate or that she was wrong, in which case she could be wrong about a great many other things (Republican words, not mine)? And then the Obama camp could march out and say that he opposed it, and she didn't, and that he was right all along, and therefore you should vote for Obama.

And let's be frank: Edwards doesn't stand a chance against these two. If the centrist Obama doesn't win the primaries, Miss Popular Clinton will. Unfortunately, as good as Edwards would be, it's my belief that Obama (who I would like to see slightly (and only slightly) more as president than Edwards) or Clinton (who I don't want to see as president, and that's not a fear of femininity) are a shoe-in already, and the leading chance to become president come the race. Of course, it probably wouldn't hurt either candidate's chances to try and secure Edwards as VP. Of course, he's already been there once and a half times (Gore had him on the very short list reportedly), so he might just say no, or the candidates may view him as vote-costing (as he lost the Kerry/Edwards election quite comprehensively).

So, in their blogger's opinion, it's still a two horse race, and on the issue of Iraq, it's still my opinion that Obama is a shoe-in. Of course, there was more discussed at the debate than Iraq, but everyone touts (and I believe) that it's probably the biggest issue (unless something comes up between now and then) that the Democrats have to face, as well as the Republicans. The Republicans have to stand up against their party's want to go to war and how they voted (which, if they voted against, is likely to cost them more votes than if they voted for). The Democrats have to convince the people that they oppose the Iraq war for the right reasons and have another, successful, course of action. And on that last point, Obama has Hilary by a mile. And, in the face of Edward's back-handed slap, Obama not only replied in the most effective way, but was a cool as a cucumber so as to no appear a show-off:

"And, you know, I think it's important not to play politics on something that is as critical and as difficult as this."

What a suave SOB. And all he needs to do is reply in exactly the same fashion against anything Hilary might have to say about the issue, and he is a lock. And that's the part Obama has played, and will continue to play, within his party: he's a uniter. Being of the centre, he brings together the left and the right of his party, and then some of the left from the Republicans. He doesn't go around promoting communism or other left-wing extremist views, but nor does he cross over into the traditionally red area. When Wolf Blitzer asked the question (where a blue-red candidate would have a field day answering it) if English should be the official language of the United States, he replied with another cool, calculated response:

"When we get distracted by those kinds of questions, I think we do a disservice to the American people."

And that's shutting down Fox's Blitzer with a single sentence, while also ensuring that his views on a whole range of issues are moderate enough that the far from extreme right voters and the left voters all can rally together under. Which is exactly why Obama would win the presidential race. The only issue is: beat out the other candidates for the primaries. It's a tougher battle there than for the White House this time around. And it's only because of Clinton's popularity.

When it comes down to policies deciding votes, then things will get interesting. While people say Obama's inexperience is a bad thing, I tend to disagree. It's a chance to shape his policies in an election-winning way. Clinton has to deal with her Iraq Resolution vote, her extreme left opinions on some issues and policies that she has talk about that may not be popular on the right side of politics (and mean that she can't steal any votes). Edwards the exact same. But now, Obama gets to talk about his first detailed economic policies, his first detailed immigration policies, his first detailed health care policies. First first first. And if he has a good team behind him, then they shouldn't be a problem. And, being the centrist that he is, he can make different types of policies that the left-left Clinton and the left Edwards can't, and will secure more votes that way than if he tailored his campaign and presidency to securing the extreme left.

The only first, though, that is really important, is winning the primaries, then going onto the White House.

Thomas.

P.S. Just when you thought it was safe to go back int the water ...

I know it has been a while since I did a political post, and before my McCain rip, even longer. But I enjoy them more than most other posts (behind probably movies, T.V. and holidays), so I'm probably going to do a fair few this month with all the free time I have. They seem to take a little longer, having to cross-check and find quotes etc.

2007-06-01T17:07:00.000+10:00

We have a dog. A family dog. This is her. And this. We like our dog. The photos were taken yesterday, out of sheer boredom.

Her name is Rosie. Her name comes from The Lord of the Rings books (Rosie Cotton), as have all of our pet's names, other than Sally, who was our cat for twenty years. She is eight years old I think, and turning nine in August. She recently had a haircut.

That is all.

Thomas.

2007-06-01T00:07:00.000+10:00

14 visits short of 600 for the month. Bummer. But, as was mentioned in comments, well over 1000 page views - 1163. And five posts short of averaging one a day. But, while I probably could have spammed my way to that with a variety of pointless topics that I thought up during the day, I didn't exactly want to achieve a feat (as minor as it might seem) like that in such a manner.

Now all I need to do is post more often and average at least 20 visits a day to get the post rate and visit number to beat May just gone.

Also, the next post will be #200 for this blog. I really am exceeding the expectations I had for myself. Though, that's a common occurrence with me, as I don't actually expect anything from myself at all.

Thomas.

2007-05-31T11:35:00.000+10:00

So, as I commented on a blog two days ago, yesterday, Fischer Library was giving out free books. To keep and not have to worry about that pesky return date, or other students needing the "essential readings". I personally think it should be a free-for-all in the library where if you need a book, its to first person to get out the door with it. Maybe it shouldn't even stop there - it's a world-wide brawl for the essential readings. You finally get your hands on Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations, look over your shoulder, start running for the door and get tackled by the person you sit next to in lectures who rips the books from your hands, then makes it through the door, only to be hit round the head by a 2x4 obtained from the new construction areas by the lecturer, who heads to Central Station, only to be pushed onto the tracks, and the book retrieved by another student. It might make university interesting for once, what, having to run for your life.

Anyway, the library was giving books out. I managed to scavenge seventeen from the overwhelming crap that no one has probably borrowed in they were first placed on the shelf. That's not to say what I got were gems. The category I used for selection was "That title could be applicable to something I might be concerned with in the next fifty years, so I'll take it!" I really just stayed in the politics part and grabbed a few books concerning American politics , then moved to the education section and the rest of my grab-bag was about secondary education and special education and stuff like that, knowing that that's a subject I'm doing sooner or later.

All in all, it meant that I got free books. Free anything these days is a good thing, so I went home happy for once (seriously, it's one of the few times), and even got off a CityRail train happy. It was a bizarre experience.

Thomas.

2007-05-29T21:44:00.000+10:00

QANTAS the worst? Obviously those people interviewed never traveled EzyJet. Now if you want to emulate atrocious service, you want to emulate anything EzyJet does - from ridiculously strict check-in times to fucking up your own conveyor belts. And orange? Seriously, it hurts the eyes when you wake up.

Oh, and I couldn't put my hat (my Akubra) on my lap during landing. Why, I have no idea. Maybe because it's such a block to thoroughfare in case the plane crashes? Because you're bound to just glide in and have a chance to walk down the aisle, and you certainly don't want a hat that could block your way. Certainly you couldn't just, well, step on it and flatten it. No no no, I hear rabbit pelts can only be cut by diamonds and sharp wit. Bunch of poms. The B.A. rejects they have to employ probably only share half a brain. And that's with the pilot as well.

Six more posts ...

Sixty visits ...

As a side note, the blog, this month, has seen 904 page views. Praps it could reach 1000 by the end of month?

Thomas.

2007-05-29T17:48:00.000+10:00

Did anyone else notice that a guy on one team on The Rich List last night (Channel Seven) was also a contestant on 1 vs 100 last night as well (Channel Nine)? The wharfie whose name I think way Jay (?) who named $75, 000 worth of countries with a 'z' in their name, and is currently the reigning pod-dweller, with a lady, to the next episode of The Rich List . That was 7:30pm - 8:30pm. 8:30pm - 9:30pm was 1 vs 100, and he won jack shit. I missed what sent him out, but I doubt it would have been about countries with 'z' in their name.

It's probably unlikely that it was planned (I don't remember reading that Jay the wharfie is a ratings lock), so another strange coincidence that happened yesterday.

Seven more posts ...

Thomas.

2007-05-29T17:35:00.000+10:00

A little anecdote, just to make this the most posted month this blog has seen to reflect it as the most visited month, yesterday, someone came to this blog from the QBE insurance firm. One of my friends works there (relatively high up for his age I believe), though he had no idea I actually wrote a blog whatsoever. I thought it would be rather strange if had just happened upon the blog, so I asked him. he and I always joke about how he never does any work, while I, the university student, have a harder life. Of course, this is total bullshit, but it's a running joke. So when he denied having come to the blog, it was a case of loading on the sarcasm and using it as proof that he really doesn't do any work, especially at the end of the financial year.

On something similar, but in no way related, I had a visitor from the BBC today. They came by Googling "Deus Lo Vult", so obviously they weren't exactly looking for a topic that I may have blogged about. But I find it interesting that also during this month I had a visitor from Fairfax Ltd. as well. Deus Lo Vult on the rise? No, not really. But interesting readers? Certainly.

And on something that is neither similar nor related, I'm wondering if I could churn out eight posts (that don't constitute post-spam) in the next two days to bring the post rate up to once a day. Would be a challenge, but I struggle to think of topics at the best of times ...

Hopefully I can think of ideas that get me linked and get me another sixty viewers as well, taking the total for the month to 600.

Thomas.

2007-05-27T17:11:00.000+10:00

The 18 Cup appears to be unofficially retired as it gathers dust on my shelf. Of course, the Cup has gathered quite a bit of dust on my shelf when it was played for, but that's beside the point. In terms of cards, for those who still enjoy playing, rather than doing nothing, poker is dead. Long live 500! For some time I've played 500 (outside of The 18 Cup group) and maintained it to be a superior card game to Texas Hold 'Em, but the novelty of poker was there to enjoy. 500 is a rather serious, fought out and exciting game, where thinking, skills and teamwork reach a level unseen in poker. It's a game for truly skilled card players (which would explain why some people who are weak at cards choose to not play it).

I have many a stories about 500 that could be retold, but they aren't exactly interesting - family and friend politics, father and son excommunication, yelling, screaming, fun and tournaments. One that I will regale is the following: my family is good friends with two other families. Each of the eldest sons went to primary school and were in the same year (that's me), and we played sports growing up with each other. And we all enjoy snow trips, so we traveled down to the fields every year for a few years and stayed for a week or so. At nights we would play cards, and there were many people there who knew how to play 500: ten people. Five teams of two. So one year we decided that we would set up a tournament of sorts and play for this wooden egg-cup that was in the lodge we stayed at. I was was probably (then) the fourth best playing the rounds and I was paired with the best player there - the mother of one of the boys I went to school with. And we went undefeated through seven matches in one night. We backed up the following night with another undefeated seven matches, followed by the next year with an undefeated six. So, with my partner, for The Egg-Cup, I'm 20 - 0. Go me.

While not undefeated in social play with The 18 Cup gang, I do hope that we can start playing for The 18 Cup, and then continue on with my quasi-professional winning streak. Even if it means having to beat the one who calls Misère.

Thomas.

2007-05-26T17:32:00.000+10:00

This month may very well become the most successful month for this blog. Not surprisingly, it's been the most hectic, in terms of university work, that I've had all year I suspect. Already I've had more visitors this months (466 as of right now, with five days to go) compared to the previous best (434 for th whole month of November '06), and the post count is at twenty-one (inclusive) - one shy of my most productive month of August '06 (with 22 posts). Note that I'm 123 page views short of the most in a month (October '06).

As I thought about this, I remembered reading Jim Belshaw's post about why people blog and the sense of community. It was rather insightful, and I believed it to be true (I even left a comment! Shock and awe!), and it made me think about why I blog. I know that this blog generally serves as a distraction from university work for me, but I suspect that I also use it as an outlet to have the conversations that I don't have with other people (the whole six or so people that I speak to in real life), or at least blow off some steam that I otherwise would have to keep inside.

I have a high regard for people who blog for an actual purpose, rather than fulfilling their own wants and needs, as with me. But the fact that some might find all this interesting is in itself interesting.

Thomas.

2007-05-26T16:39:00.000+10:00

You know how in life you encounter two 'special' types of person? There's those people that you can't do a thing wrong, you and them are just great company, you know, really friendly and all. And then there's the other type, where no matter how much effort you put into things, you cannot get along for more than an hour, if even five minutes. Well, I certainly have experienced my mix of these two people in the past 24 hours. There's someone I know (and anyone who knows me outside of this blog will know who I am talking about) who I simply cannot continually get along with. Don't think I haven't tried. I have, and I did for a long time, but it just got so tiresome and frustrating that I realised any value that friendship might have certainly wasn't worth the effort it required. So, quite simply, I gave up caring what this person thought or said or uttered about me under their breath and put them out of mind. I wouldn't go out of my way to piss them off just to piss them off, but I certainly wouldn't go out of my way to appease their every want and will (which, you may wish to note, would have been what maintaining that friendship entailed). I just gave up on the person because, all-in-all, they are a complete idiot, obnoxious to the world and oblivious to other people. They are self-centred and self-consumed and don't give two hoots unless the topic of conversation is about them. And, of course, they know everything, don't take advice, and never listen to a word they say.

So please, indulge me for a moment, when I relay the following scenario to you - plans are made, people agree to them, and someone 'calls in sick'. If plans are made, things have been planned around an event. If I need to, say, wake up at 4:30am to get to work (which I do of a Saturday morning), and I can avoid absolutely having to go out Friday night, then I will. But, if I've made plans to go out Friday night, I'm not exactly going to bump my friends for a night's sleep all because I can't be fucked going out. I'm not like that - if I say I'm going somewhere, and people have banked and made plans around me showing, then I show. But the person I'm referring to simply doesn't think about that, and even though they've made a commitment to show, they attempt to ultimately ditch the event. That might not make a whole lot of sense outside of my dark mind, but it makes sense to me, so I'm running with it.

Now, knowing full well that I care about as much as knocking over a glass of water as I do the friendship with the person who is prepared to ditch me and my friends, am I really going to hold my tongue, or go to an effort to appease, or try and forget that it ever happened (that I could have had a good night's sleep for my work and gone out Saturday instead) all for the sake of this 'friendship'? Hell no. In fact, I'm going to make sure that the person knows just how much I value it and say "Don't come tonight, I won't come any night". It's not an attempt to piss someone off, it's an attempt to make this person wake up and realise that they aren't the centre of the world and that if you make a commitment, you damn well better show!

End of that story is: they showed, tried to have a horrible night (while three others intended on having a great night) ended up having a good night, though for a majority of the evening, created a tension air and a grumpy mood between he and I. I couldn't care less - I went and saw Pirates of the Caribbean III, I had a good meal, I enjoyed the company of two people who were there and I got home and had some sleep. I doubt this person could say the same thing, but like spilled water, I don't care about it.

Now that's the second type of person who you (or I at least) just do not care to be around anymore. The first type, I have the pleasure of working with on the rare occassion. See, I work at a golf course, and even though people blow off the idea that I could have risen through ranks, I worked my way up from a lowly range ball collector to what is officially called a sales position, but in actuality, I run the course on Saturdays (the busiest day of the week as it is competition day) and, during the semester holidays, any other days I get called in. I'm left unsupervised regularly, have to deal with excess of 100 customers per hour, while coordinating around 200 people on a golf course at once. That's not an effort to make myself sound more important that I am, but just a very general description of what I do. I've been doing it for three years now (I've been employed by the course for four years and some months) and I like to think I do a good job at it. There was a dodgey patch some where in the middle when I didn't get along with one of my bosses, but they got fired because no one got along with them.

Anyway, enough about that crap. When the course got brought out, we had a new boss and he decided to keep on the original employees, while implementing new administrative roles (accountant and general business manager). The general business manager ended up being the new owner's daughter, Marie, who is a delightful and just a great person. At the time when she started, I was working there the most, and knowing that she was my top-boss' daughter, I thought it stupid to get off-side with her, or at least act a mindless drone around her. And, I won't shy away from it: I had just finished high school, and one of the things that was on my mind (after being freed from an all-boys school) was fostering the company of women. And I certainly wasn't adverse to my co-employees' company - she is very attractive, and has a personality to boot. So there might have been (well, it's pretty much guaranteed) efforts to 'impress', or at least be memorable. And things went swimmingly and, as much as I can suspect, we both managed to get something out of the friendship that we both wanted - she managed to transition into the place quicker, easier and had someone to work with who was a bunch of fun (because during the week it can get so damn boring at a golf course), and I managed to at least hold my own in the company of a female (which, again, for people who know me outside of this blog, would gawk at that idea - I'm not exactly the most sociable when it comes to male company, not even delving into the mysterious world of women).

Then I started university, I had my days cut back to weekends and sporadic weekdays, and after about six months, Marie decided she had had enough of the course (it's not exactly a perfect working environment, rather, a juggling act of working, customer relations and socialisation). So we never saw each other for some time. Then, the person who replaced her unfortunately got sick and had to leave. Now in between the (probably) good two years that went by between me going to university and when the replacement got sick, I saw Marie perhaps twice, when she was called in for emergencies or short-staffed days etc., but not in any capacity to catch up. So when the replacement got sick, Marie was called in. I was still only working Saturdays, but I was getting called in more regularly because, as mentioned, one of my bosses was fired, and every now and then I get called up to cover them. I have no problems, I need the money, so I agree, but I didn't exactly jump at the opportunity until I found out that Marie was back to working there.

Now, my train of thought had shifted over the two years from the reasons I was glad to be working with her before she left and the reasons I now am glad to work with her. Over the two years I went through a roller-coaster of wanting to be there, not wanting to be there, hating the place, enjoying the place, all these changes in emotions, until it sort of settled on "Well Thomas, the best way to enjoy working there is to enjoy the company you have". Now the golf pro that I open up on Saturday mornings with is real top bloke, and the trainee that I work with through the afternoon is just as good. Similarly, my new boss and one of my old bosses are great to work with as well. But the customers ... the customers ... the customers can just drive you to world's end sometimes. Well, not sometimes: every time. See, at my golf course, the members think they know everything, and a lot of them are like the first category of people I mentioned. Now don't get me wrong, there are some real characters and people that you have to enjoy the company off, and I have no trouble bending over backwards for them and going to efforts. But I have to do this for the people I don't like either, and that really ticks me off. I learned long ago that I have to keep all that in, but some weeks you just can't - whether everything goes wrong or in their eyes you can't do your job or they just complain about things to you that you have no responsibility over. There are a million ways people can give me a headache, and I don't expect I've experienced them all. But I make the best of the company I have.

So, from this, it's understandable why I would jump at the chance to work with Marie if I can. I don't have to make a effort to make the company good - she makes it good for us. Any conversation we have we both enjoy - and they aren't always silly conversations either. She's a university graduate and is interested in what I'm doing. I'm someone who likes to talk, so I'm interested in anything. Additionally, she thinks that I'm witty and funny - how she came to this conclusion I'll never know. But we both get a kick working with one another. I don't have as much fun working with anyone else across the span of the day as I would if I worked with Marie.

Of course, to say that I've entirely forgotten all of those reason I wanted to work with Marie would be a lie.

I'm not exactly sure, when I started this post, where I intended to go with it, but here's where I'm going to conclude: with these two types of people, you can see how they both affect you, and ultimately, which friendship you're going to put effort into and which one you're not. Funnily enough, the friendship I want to put effort into doesn't need any effort at all - it develops and flows by itself, and it doesn't exactly end when we don't see each other for long stretches of time. But the (former) friendship that required a lot of effort just taxes you like nothing on Earth, and eventually you just give up. Thankfully, now that I have given up on this burden of a friendship, there's this gray weight gone from my mind, and it's giving me a heck of a lot of time more time to think about more important things.

Things like refiling those glasses of water I might have split.

Thomas.

2007-05-21T21:14:00.000+10:00

I think, though I can't be sure, that I'm the subject of a conversion attempt. I received an email from someone who claimed to have found my work through Ninglun, and from there he linked me to pages and websites that talked about philosophy, and materialism and science bashing. I wasn't exactly sure how to treat it, as I've never been the sort of person to be targeted by preachers and converters and what-have-you. But apparently my blog indicates otherwise.

I'll give those pages a look over, and try and make some sense out of it, but from what I'd read so far, I needed a clear and focused mind, such is it's depth - something that I don't have when Desperate Housewives is on. Perhaps tomorrow. Though, in saying that, I don't know how long I'll be able to focus before I start critiquing what is written and starting a never-ending Internet argument in which no one will win, and eventually it will drop into the realm of flame warring.

Thomas.

2007-05-21T12:51:00.000+10:00

I realise I was rather harsh in terms of 'critiquing' Turkey two posts ago. Let me explain why, and further kill the second bird by telling the story about the worst day of my life.

I woke up at 2am, got driven to Luton Airport, to get a 6:30 flight to Istanbul. I was flying EzyJet, and their procedure goes that you have to check in at least forty minutes before the flight. We (myself, my grandfather and his brother) wanted to get there with plenty of time to spare, just in case, and rocked up at 4:30am expecting check in to be easy. Now, here's the thing with EzyJet: you don't reserve a seat, they sell more tickets than they have seats, it's super strict, so if you're not there forty minutes before, and it's thirty-eight, they will not let you on the plane.

That is, unless, they fuck up.

They announced that the check-in desks for our flight, only two desks, and a mass of people flocked. We made probably the 3/5ths mark, and stood there. And stood. And stood. And stood some more. We did not move a step forward for forty-five minutes. Then we started moving. Eventually, we made the counter, LAST, somehow, and check it ... at 6am. We made a mad dash towards security where they had to scan hand-luggage, jackets, hats, boots and whatever the hell I could take off that would conceal a weapon. I made it through, and bolted towards the plan, and grabbed the first seat I could. That was at 6:20am. Ten minutes later, the plane was going, my relos were on, and we were in the air. That just started the whole day off.

Landing, you need a visa to get out of the airport. They accept EU dollars if you're from certain countries or US dollars from others. Do note, any travelers, that they will not give you change for any amount. It was US$10 (I think, but it certainly could have been more) to get this visa, and no matter what note you were using to pay with, whether it was a twenty, a fifty or a hundred, you would not get change.

Getting stamped, after getting your visa, was just as bad. They give you the third degree about where you're from and what have you. This, on top of the fact that my guy decided to walk off with my passport. Now, there's the number one rule as a traveler that you do not let your passport out of sight. You lose it and you're fucked. So there I was, having to chase this guy down back to the visa booth. Apparently the guy had stuck on the wrong one. All this government official had to do was put a sticker on one of the pages and he couldn't even get that right. Eventually I caught the guy, watched my passport, then got through.

Bus trip number one: Sabiha Gökçen International Airport into Istanbul, over an hour in a 30 C bus in ridiculous traffic. At that time, I thought it would be the worst.

Get into the bus depot and start walking around, looking for a store that sells bus tickets to Canakkale. Immediatly we were swamped by the following people:

A man trying to sell us "good Russian wives";
Numerous people trying to shine our shoes. I had suede on by that time;
Beggars, who rank high on my list of people I dislike;
Chestnut cart vendors;
Taxi drivers

Escaping these people we dragged our bags across Taxim Square, which had more people there than I'd ever seen in one place before. It was bedlam. We asked approximately twenty people how to find a street and got three different ways to go, ten people just ignore us and the rest just mutter something to the person they were with. Eventually we found where we were looking for, and discovered that they were out of tickets and we would have to get the 6pm bus. That's not that bad, right?

Wrong. The bus trip is six ... freaking ... hours! We knew this, and we should have somehow arranged to get earlier tickets but the person we got in contact said there would be no problems getting tickets for the 2pm bus on the day. I guess something was last in translation.

So, we had to mull around for around three hours or so. The amount of people hadn't subsided and we were hungry. We found, of all places, a Burger King and stayed there for the time. I didn't need to go to the toilet at that time, but I surely wish I had. But my grandfather did and said that he had to navigate the most disgusting bathroom he's ever seen. Obviously he had never seen the stairwell.

So it's time to get a shuttle bus to the bus station where the six hour journey starts. And it was meant to be there at 5:00pm so that we would make our trip. And time went by ... and by ... and by ... and no bus. It came, at 5:30pm, and he made a mad dash for the depot. We made it in time for me to make the mistake of my life. "I need to go to the toilet. I'll be right back."

I walked one direction, I walked the other, and I couldn't see a single restroom. I ducked into one office, they had no idea what I was asking about. I found another, asked, then had to do a few hand actions to convey what I was looking for. A shifty old man grabbed my arm and pulled me to a stairwell and pointed in the direction. He tried to make sure that I understood, but because I was expecting something that I'm used to, he ultimately failed. Though, credit to him, he did help me, and I was grateful.

I started down the stairs, and by about the second turn, the place stank. I guessed that it was a rarely cleaned toilet I was headed to. I stepped off one platform and pulled my foot up in enough time to keep clear of a puddle of urine. I looked for a place to step and realised that, well, the stairwell was the bathroom and that you just let fly off the bottom step. Having my Western notions of modesty, I stepped up to a wall, trying to, you know, look inconspicuous, and did my tour of duty. I ran out of there as fast as I could. Eventually my grandfather's brother wanted to go to the toilet before the trip, so I warned him then pointed to the stairwell.

We get on the bus, and wait around, until close to 7pm waiting for people. Punctuality must be optional with buses in Turkey. I was praying that I wouldn't get anyone sitting next to me, but I did. And I'm all the better for it. I could not have met a more helpful, kind and generous person on my entire trip. His name was Seljuk, and he was our saviour. He came from Canakkle, he worked for a tile manufacturing firm and he had just flown in from Spain where he was at a tile convention. We had at least four hours of conversation before exhaustion set in for me, being up since 2am. I found out that China's economic expansion is affecting Turkey as much as Australia, that they are mad soccer fans, that he thought the people of Istanbul were rude, offensive and uncouth (a word I had taught him to describe around five minutes of trying to describe them with different words) and that he rarely went into the city because it was too crowded.

The bus trip, which was advertised as six hours, was significantly longer because we made intermittent stops in random places. Imagine a bus traveling down the M5, and then having a bus pull over, in the dark, and just letting people off where not a building can be seen at all. That's what was happening. Then someone would see someone they knew and a conversation would ensue. So the trip stretched out.

At about the three hour mark, we stopped at a cafe sort of thing. Don't ever ask for a double shot because these people had no idea. I needed something to keep me awake, and I couldn't even get a strong coffee. I don't know how easy some people find it to sleep on buses, but I can't. I'm a very suspicious person, and was afraid someone would knock off my hand luggage that I held onto white-knuckled if I fell asleep. So my dozes consisted of me closing my eyes, two seconds later, ripping them open and checking to see if my bag had been touched. I wasn't worried about Seljuk beside me, I was worried about the other people who hadn't earned my trust. I was only carrying around $5000 worth of electronics and essentials to keep me going.

We got to a ferry station to cross over to Asia (I think). The bus got on, and awaited, again, until a double-barrel truck emerged from the darkness and proceeded to back into a spot that, I swear, left only an inch either side of it. It was a masterful act of REVERSING into the gap.

We made land and drove for another x-amount of hours, before, finally we made Canakkle. We got out: 2:30am. Thankfully we had phoned the the hotel to say we might be a bit later than our 8pm check in, and they said that someone would be there. I couldn't thank that man enough who waited up four and a half hours for people who could have given him the skiff for all he knew.

So, what was my experience, that created my opinion, of Istanbul? Ten hours on buses, an hour in customs and visas (and that's not counting the two and so that I had at Luton), ten millions Istanbullians and twenty four hours awake. So I'm hard on Istanbul because I had a pretty average experience. But Canakkale - now that's a place I would recommend. Especially Kalyon Bar. Mustafa owns the place, he worked on a Miami cruise ship for a while, so he speaks very good English and makes mean margarita. And he has a very nice friend in Besra(?), who can hold her own at the bar ... until the spirits come out. And TJ's Tours, who do the ANZAC tours, s so frigging good! There were a whole three of us, and normally a tour group runs on a minimum amount of people, otherwise it's not worth the price in fuel, but he went out in a bus with just us three. He gave us salad rolls (which is what I'm pinning getting food poisoning from, but it didn't set in until we left) and a bottle of water all for AUD$40. We had the most enjoyable time in Canakkale, and I could not fault it for a single second.

Which is certainly why I'd recommend it. But Istanbul? I, personally, would recommend trying to avoid it and heading to the skirts of the country. I generally say that to anyone traveling anywhere - whether it's Australia, England or where ever. Don't go to where the most people are. It's like going to Sydney city - everyone's rude and blah. But get away, go bush, or go to somewhere like Adelaide or Hobart or Perth, and it's grand.

Thus, please understand all you Turks out there, that when I say I don't like Istanbul, it's because I had a bum experience there. But the rest of Turkey, as far as I can say, is a world of difference and a great place to go.

Thomas.

2007-05-21T12:37:00.000+10:00

Back to the old days with university. An hour trip in, an hours lecture, and then an hours trip back home. I spend more time traveling than I do learning. Not that a whole lot of learning happens at university these days.

Theoretically I should be spending all this extra time doing my assignments and catching up on work and all that hoo-haa. But that ain't happening. Not for a second.

Thomas.

2007-05-20T21:10:00.000+10:00

I've planned out, on paper that is, my next holiday. When it is going to happen is up in the air - it could start as soon as next year, or may have to wait until I finish three and a half more years of university. Either way, it's a big 'un. And there's a reason behind it - I want to go on a holiday and not be a tourist.

Ok, that probably makes no sense at all outside of my mind, so I'll try and explain it as best I can. See, the country I've spent the longest, uninterrupted time in is Orlando, for two weeks, back in '01. But I was only a kid, and it was a holiday that my parents had planned out, and it was all about Disneyworld. The next longest is about a week and a half in London, on my just-gone holiday. That time I wasn't a son, rather I was a tourist. And sure, the novelty was good, but I really wanted to get through that barrier and become something more. Something that meant I could fit in and become 'one of the locals', just with an odd accent. Being a tourist is fun, because of the anonymity factor, but I want a chance to actually start something over, knowing that it would all come to an end on a certain date. Which would mean a chance to do-over any mistakes I had 'blending in' here and the chance to live every day like it's the last. It would be a chance to really try out a new and exciting experience in an increasingly predictable world.

Which is what my (paper) holiday has planned out - it's five months or so spent in and around the USA. I frankly don't care what people's opinions are of "Americans" or "America", because a lot of these people are speaking from ignorance - they are generalising on a base of Bush, stereotypes and T.V. at best, and the America they talk about is the trigger-happy, war-mongering, ill-democracy that is so popular to bash on these days. I want to go over to experience the real America. I've been there, albeit a long time ago, but I've been there and I have no recollection of any truth being behind the anti-America arguments.

The same happened when I was on my last holiday. People say Turkey is a great country is they've been, otherwise, it's just another terrorist-filled blot on the map (and, for the oblivious persons out there, something I don't believe). I found that the people there were extremely nice outside of Istanbul, as you generally find in all countries, but inside of the wannabe capital (because, yes, I knew it was Ankara, I had to stop over there) it's too freaking busy to even gauge a feeling. I won't be going back to Istanbul, but perhaps to other places outside of. Now that's the opinion of one who has been there, and the subjectivity of my experience clouds my perception - I contracted food-poisoning, one of the public toilets I used was a stairwell (I should probably blog about that story actually) and all of my quirks made sure that I had a very average time. Thus, experience creates opinion.

So when people spout about how Americans are rude and loud, or obnoxious or whatever, and they have never set foot inside the country at all (and would anyone truly want their country judged on the handful of tourists that go abroad every year? Would you want Australia to be judged on it's tourists i.e. me, when they are traveling?) and America is an awful place to travel to, I just laugh in their faces and talk about how stupid they sound (usually around now I have to duck, as the person I'm ridiculing takes a swing at me) and then talk about how I'm going there to create my own, informed, opinion.

Anyway, that's the second reason I want to go to America. The third is pretty simple - to do something on my own. I want to plan and book a holiday all on my own (I pretty much did this last time, as my grandfather is hopeless on computers, but he had input), I want to go on a holiday all on my own - I want to do things in a foreign country, on the other side of the world, on my own. Call this my break at independence, call it selfishness, call it whatever, but it's what I want to do. And, in fiscal and practical terms, it could happen this year. The only thing keeping me from doing it is the fact that I want to try and make this the most kick-ass holiday ever.

So, getting away from reason why, and getting to what doing, I have a list, in my room, of things I want to do before my life is out. Things get added to it every year, and very few things get removed. Some might call that weird, but when I ask people what they want to do in their lives, they have to think and umm and uhhh and whatever before they come up with one or two things, which generally include owning a house and having a job that they like, then these dream holiday ideas that I have come into play. I don't have to think, I've got it all on paper, and about twenty of them can get knocked off the list with this monster trip I have planned, and then still have months of free time to spare.

As just a few, new years in New York was high on the list. So was see a SuperBowl, not because I particularly like NFL (I do like it) but because it's one of the biggest sporting events in the world (and I plan on going to every big thing that sports has to offer). Of course, there's those tourist-ey things, like Mt. Rushmore, Grand Canyon, Hollywood, but there's a heck of a lot of obscure things, like spending a over a month living in Texas. I don't know why I want to do it, but I do. And, of course, being in Texas means you can stop in at Dallas and stand on the Grassy Knoll. Additionally, because there are so many Americans (and Canadians surprisingly) on th eInternet, I've invariably made some friends who I'd like to go see, so that's something else drawing me to America.

But this huge holiday, to get back to where I nearly started, means that I am spending a long time in single locations, which means it gives me long enough to establish some kind of 'place' in a society. That's all I want to do - throw myself into a sort of experiment, where I have to reestablish myself from an outsider's position to an insider, all in a finite amount of time and knowing, full well, that I'm going back to a monotonous and mundane life at the end, which should only spur me on to make the most of it all.

That's the plan at least. But when it comes to holidays and me, those plans happen.

Thomas.

2007-05-20T21:08:00.001+10:00

On Thursday, as my friend Andrew will testify to, I had to go into Sydney University to hand in an assignment and be subject to a second interview as part of a research program on the course I just finished: EDUF3028 Mentoring in Educational Contexts. They shape the course next year according to student feedback from evaluation surveys and the mentor's interviews. I (covertly) obtained copies of my mentee's surveys to see what they thought about me and the way I handled the workshops. To my immense surprise, they were overwhelmingly positive, and that's no lie (trust me, I would have taken pleasure in getting negative feedback to write about).

So, as I mentioned, I had to go in for this interview. The first one was meant to be half and hour, but mine somehow stretched to a tick under a whole hour. I am probably the most ideal test subject because I like to give in-depth and articulate answers to their questions, so generally when I answer, I invariably give the interviewer something to run with, or go off on a tangent with. So I expected this one to be just as long, especially seeings it was a follow-up and partially reflective on what had transpired over the past eight weeks or so.

My interviewer, who was an extremely likable and pleasant person, reported to me at the conclusion of the interview that I had given her, by far, the most positive and self-constructive (the experience being positive for me) feedback out of everyone she had interviewed. I was rather pleased that I could contribute something positive (no pun intended) to the program and, with the honestly (that isn't really a trait of my) that I brought to that interview, perhaps I will have a hand (through my interview) of shaping the course next year. Because I was told that the vast majority of first and second interviews consisted of "It was ok" and "Yeas" or "No" to the questions that were wide enough to write an essay about.

What my answers consisted off were how good the workshops were, that the mentees had come to me for help for a range of problems and that the preparation and teaching that I did engage in had helped instill some sort of confidence in me that I would have otherwise gone into my practicals next year without. See, I'm rather weak, in fact hopeless, in public speaking roles. I hate the vast majority of speeches (and the only ones I do like are on topics that I'm very proficient in, i.e. Star Wars, CityRail and my current desktop background). So I had a rather large doubt that I could even cut it in a classroom at all, and the only thing I had to gauge myself on was these public speaking roles I had to take part in, whether it be an individual speech or group task. Whatever it was, I was judging myself on those.

But, per my reflections and the surveys that my mentees had me fill out, I wasn't hopeless at all. In fact, I seemed to be a degree above competent in the Thomas Rating System, by what the surveys said and what I thought I was. It should be noted that the mentees thought that I would never see what they wrote, and that no one was being marked on it, not us or them, and that they were entirely confidential. So they were free to write what they wanted, and they all apparently did - and my performance was to their liking.

So, by the end of Thursday, I was rather pleased with myself. Significantly more pleased than I had been for quite some time to be honest. It was reassuring to have positive feedback in some facet of my life, and to at least know one decision I made, about a year and a half ago, was actually the right one.

Thomas.

2007-05-17T21:31:00.000+10:00

I watch The Amazing Race and I often wonder who I would team up with out of everyone I know to kick ass and win. Same with Survivor - what team of eight I would pick out of all my acquaintances to go on to win with. The question would be who could put up with me for 24/7 for months on end for half a million dollars. That's a princely sum, but enough?

Also, on something totally unrelated, this is classic (and for just as entertaining reports - this, this and all 143 articles that were written). A riot ... because of a late train ... classic. I wish I was there. In fact, next time I'm at a train station and the train is late, don't be surprised if you see me trying to incite a riot. Hopefully I can think of some anti-right rhetoric to get the university students who are there to take part, and then the mindless drones who work in offices will just follow the mob.

Anyone who's had experience in a riot, any tips on how to make it most effective, destructive and out-of-control would be much appreciated. Bull horns I expect are a must, as are burning 2x4s. I think the destruction of the ticket machines was the best thing out of the article above. Because it's totally the machine's fault ...

Thomas.

2007-05-17T17:30:00.000+10:00

Now that the most hectic four weeks of university work have come to an end, and I only have one assessment due next month that I can work on now, I can turn my attention (full attention that is) back to the things that actually interest me, like CityRail, T.V., cricket, movies and politics. Seeings cricket is over for the season, and T.V. and movies I'm saving for holidays because they are a mountain of interest for me, and CityRail doesn't interest me, rather it pisses me off. So that leaves politics. And what's more interesting that American politics?

My knowledge had slipped as of late, not having that much time to keep my ear to the ground, being in a different country and all. But, generally, I had kept tabs on those in the running for the Democratic primaries. After all, it's a powerhouse of names that stand a chance at becoming President, as long as they don't screw anything up: Obama, Clinton, Edwards the three serious names, with fringe candidates like Clark, Gore and Biden. I knew, roughly, how each of these stood in relation to winning the Democratic votes. But I had lost track of where the Republicans stood in relation to one another. All ... one of the Republicans who would stand a chance at winning the election, and the whole two who stand a chance at the primaries.

Who are those Reds? No, not the communists, but the Republicans who stand a chance? Well, none of them really. But whose names are in the hat? Well, we have former favourite to win the primaries and the office out of all the Republicans, John McCain. But his constant flip-flopping and shift to the extreme right, as well as walking all over the qualities that he had that made him favourable out of all the Republicans has simply thrown him out of the running. McCain has quickly turned into the Republican joke, and the guy that the Democrats want to get in. Let's take a look at his stance on election-deciding issues shall we?

Abortion, first up. What stood McCain out from the other Republicans was that he towed a moderate (for the Reps at least) line that he wouldn't ban it it, as it would force women to seek out illegal abortions(1). Then, last year in a whole spat of media tours to secure other's seats in the lead up to the '06 General Elections, McCain went and said wouldn't care in the slightest if the Supreme Court banned abortion, and further, would sign off on South Dakota's ban attempts to ban abortions as well (2). So where McCain stood a chance to steal over any Democrat/centre voters on this issue, his move to the extreme right on this issue has, in fact, meant that not only can he steal votes here, but he would have lost Republican (moderate)/centre voters who either don't enjoy his flip-flopping or don't agree with banning abortion.

How about economic issues? Bush's infamous tax cuts, McCain publicly denounced and opposed them for three years (3), then abruptly changed his stance, come the lead up to the '06 General Elections again, to supporting and voting for Bush's tax cuts (4). Similarly, when it came to campaign funding, he championed campaign finance reform (5) then, in '05, was busy laying foundations to opt out of the campaign finance system for the '08 race (6). So he's towing the party line here, again, and making himself another red sheep and he stops standing out from the rest, as the Republican's centrist-counter to Obama in the race, and becomes another Bush.

Social issues are certainly key to winning an election, and being able to capitalise on this is what can win an election. So you would think that someone running for the White House would just pick a stance and not budge, and cover up anything that might cost them votes with policies and opinions that would win them some, right? No, not McCain. Let's talk about Jerry Falwell, famous for recently dying and being a loud fundamentalist, in which he preached God's will occurring through everything that happened, claimed Bill Clinton was part of a cocaine smuggling ring, that the gay-oriented Metropolitan Community Churches contained members who were "brute beasts" and a part of "a vile and Satanic system" that will "one day be utterly annihilated and there will be a celebration in heaven", sued Penthouse and Hustler for publishing an interview of his in a magazine like their's, and was just a general homophobic and sexist. Now, seriously, which political figure would associate themselves with him? Not McCain, of course, who called him an "evil influence" on the Republican Party (7). Wait, no, that statement is more than a day old, and it was time for McCain to say something different. Well, he didn't just retract any statements he made about his new friend Falwell, no no no, McCain met with this crazy pastor to lay some sort of groundwork for his 2008 presidential run and agreed to speak at Falwell's Liberty University (8).

Now, of course, when he decided to take up company like this and tow the Republican lines, he certainly had to change his old views on gay marriage, which saw him oppose the federal gay marriage ban in '05 (9), and come to the red party in supporting a federal marriage amendment (10).

What could someone possibly do to lose more votes on social issues? Well, of course, advocate racism! McCain endorsed George Wallace Jr., keynote speaker at a white supremacist group meeting (11). That, of course, after he had publicly condemned the President for failing to denounce racists attitudes and beliefs at Bob Jones University in '00 (12).

Of course, our flip-book friend McCain weighed in on the Creationism/Intelligent Design debate. And, once again, he did a back flip worthy of the circus (which is where a lot of Republicans are recruited from I hear). Where he once advocated the choice of teaching Intelligent Design being left to schools (13) , he then turned round and said that "young people have the right to be told" (14) (do note not taught but told) about Intelligent Design, and further, refused to exclude it from any science classes (15).

Ultimately, all this chopping and changing and bullshit on McCain's part simply reflects what it looks like when a party has only a mediocre politician to offer the people, and they need to shape him to at least secure the extreme of their voters. Of course, it's a two way street, and it speaks a lot about McCain's convictions to his own political beliefs. Ultimately, it's this flip-flopping that will lose him the primaries as well as any chance of becoming President, and thus, sums up the Republicans chances overall.

Next time I'll dwell on the Republican's only chance at winning on policy, Mitt Romney, and not their only other name-recognition chance, who has no chance on policy, Rudy Giuliani.

Thomas.

(1) San Francisco Cronicle, 20/08/99
(2) CBS News, 25/01/06; ABC News, 29/03/06; ABC News 26/02/06; NationalJournal.com, 28/02/06
(3) Baltimore Sun, 27/04/01; Statement 18/03/03
(4) New York Times, 21/02/06
(5) New York Times 22/10/01
(6) National Journal 17/12/05; Hotline On Call 16/12/05
(7) Kansas City Star, 5/28/05
(8) US News and World Report, 11/14/05; Lynchburg News & Advance, 3/28/06
(9) Los Angeles Times, 25/01/05, 08/03 /05
(10) Meet the Press, 4/2/06
(11) AP, 17/11/05; AP, 06/06/05
(12) Fox, 24/2/00
(13) Times Union, 8/28/99
(14) Courier Journal, 12/20/05
(15) Arizona Daily Star, 8/28/05; NPR, 11/7/05

2007-05-15T17:52:00.000+10:00

Someone from Fairfax Holdings visited this blog today, after search for Simon Fontana, of '06 university board elections fame.

That's all I had to say.

Thomas.

2007-05-15T17:34:00.000+10:00

Here's some interesting facts I just happened upon while looking at (of all places) MySpace. They are all related to pornography, but that was the nature of the documentary:

12% of all websites are pornographic;
25% of all search engine requests have to do with porn;
35% of all downloads in a day are pornographic in nature;
Every second 28, 258 people are viewing porn on the Internet;
$89.00 is spent on pornography every second;
266 new porn sites appear in the Internet every day;
Sex is the most searched word on the Internet;
The United States received $2.84 billion from porn revenue in '06;
Only 72% of Internet porn users are male;
Surprisingly, 70% of Internet porn traffic occurs during the working day hours of 9am - 5pm. Obviously, for those unemployed and not exactly looking for a job, this is the ideal time when you're brother is out with his friend or attending job interviews;
There is an estimated 372 million porn pages out there on the Internets:

3% produced by the UK;
4% produced by Germany;
89% produced by the US;

The adult website with the highest traffic is AdultFriendFinder.com
The following countries have banned pornography:

Saudi Arabia
Iran
Bahrain
Egypt
UAE
Kuwait
Malaysia
Indonesia
Singapore
Kenya
India
Cuba
China

The most visited websites daily:

#1 MSN.com - 220 million visits
#4 YouTube.com - 196 million (this I would have never guessed. Now I know why it's worth so much)
#49 AdultFriendFinder.com - 7.2 million
#145 NYTimes.com - 4.1 million (Hahaha!)

I actually find a lot of those figures surprising, like the revenue one. How hypocritical is the government, espousing the moral word of the Church and what have you and then raking in $2.84 billion a year from the very business that they would have you believe is corrupting the

Thomas.

2007-05-14T20:24:00.000+10:00

Today was for this blog, a rather popular day. Twenty-five views, where the highest in the past month has been twenty, then a couple of nineteens, then a drop into the low teens. At this rate, this could be the most popular month since I started the counter. I guess that the Eight Random Facts game attracted people, just to see what that weirdo Thomas had to say about himself, then the replies that were left. And really good replies I might add.

Thanks to you four who have left comments. It's turned into a confessional of sorts. Well, turned is probably the wrong word - I started a confessional it looks like.

I guess that a new, curve ball topic proves trumps to the regular, same-old same-old. Now, remember ex-18 Cup players, that the Joker is the strongest of the trumps, followed by the Jack of the suit then Jack of the same colour, opposite suit ...

Thomas.

Edit: that twenty-five has increased to an unprecedented thirty!

2007-05-13T16:30:00.000+10:00

I have been vicitimised by ninglun here. Instead of suing for this, I will actually look at this as an opportunity to avoid doing the assignment I have due tomorrow for however long this will take, and list my eight random facts. On a side note, I expect that I have found a way to make a somewhat enjoyable and light-hearted game into a depressing and 'blah' game (blah being the technical term there).

1. I despise university. I abhor it. I would quite easily trade in the next three years of consciousness to wake up with my degrees in my hand.

2. I am extremely afraid of death. Not so much the process of dying (that is, the pain of being stabbed for example) , rather, actually being dead. Fear of not existing is probably a more apt description.

3. I believe that JFK was shot by a group of people associated with the Skull and Bones fraternity, and that George H. W. Bush was involved.

4. I have seen a shrink for the past year, and expect I will continue to see said shrink for the rest of my life.

5. There are days when I wake up and endeavor to not have to talk to a single person. There are also days when I succeed in this task.

6. I have never smoked (much less tried one drag on a cigarette) or tried any illicit drugs. I never will either.

7. Apart from Elvis and Roy Orbison, I don't follow any musicians, rather, I just like the odd songs. In saying that, my MP3 player has well over 1200 songs.

8. I have brought fifty or so DVDs without having ever seen the film before. Surprisingly, out of those fifty or so, I have only ever not throughly enjoyed two - A Streetcar Named Desire and Goodnight and Good Luck.

Now, because I haven't found eight blogs that I like enough to link to them, nor am I aware of eight people who consistently read this blog, I'm just going to go ahead and leave it up to anyone who has the stones to comment this post with the eight facts. I don't particularly mind if it doesn't happen, but it would be extremely interesting if you did and I'd certainly remember that you did it.

Thomas.

2007-05-11T15:41:00.000+10:00

My endeavor, after I pile through my mountain of university work (which, let's face it, isn't going to happen too soon given my personal drive and motivation, or lack-there-of) is to beat my benchmark of the best post of the year, as decided by ninglun on his blog, as a sort of reference point for this blog. It was the photo post of The 18 Cup, on it's world tour, back in March. The question is, how could anyone beat such a monstrous benchmark? Do I have to go on another holiday (which, as a matter of fact, is in the works for next year)? Perhaps a post with actual substance, not unlike that of my Amelie review? I'll have to put some thought into this ...

Of course, I could just write about a typical sojourn meeting. That would be quite popular on the basis that everyone would think it a work of fiction.

Thomas.

2007-05-08T22:40:00.000+10:00

The Generic Blog Post

I had a good laugh at this because it was the predominant blogging experience I saw, and even had, before I started writing my own. Very witty, but true for most political blogs. I especially liked the inclusion of spam in the example.

As to the actual comments that readers left, most are left to be desired and don't rank anywhere near the amusement levels of the post. I think they are missing the point of taking a stab at blogging in general, not a certain side of politics or commentators.

Anyway, a good read.

Thomas.

2007-05-07T22:25:00.000+10:00

Everyone, by now, should probably know what my top five films are (and if you don't, it's on the right, a scroll down), which includes the unmatched, in terms of complexity, layers of interpretation and pure camera work, Donnie Darko. Now, I'm not about to get into a review of this fantastic film (just yet) like I did with Amelie some time ago, however, I would like to draw people's attention to the stand out single-shot camera work that is my most memorable scene from DD. It's so ... I don't know, but I watch this scene and I love it. It's so unique in that there is no cutting and the single shot from the one camera is so smooth and continuous. It's very cleverly shot, bouncing off from one character to another, and manages to introduce people we haven't even seen yet, but preface the meeting we are about to have with a little snippet of information.

Also, the music, Head Over Heels by Tears for Fears is just so apt. I think I remember listening to the commentary where the director said that he had the music before the filming and shot to suit, but I may be wrong. The scene, regardless, seems to have that effect, so it was either lucky music selection or fantastic adaption of the camera to music.

Anyway, this could go on for some time, so instead, I'll sum up by saying: watch this video (some criminal has posted it on YouTube, thankfully), and what I'm raving about in the previous paragraph is 00:14 - 2:10. Now, while the rest of the scene is interesting as well, it's the single shot that I'm mostly drawn to.

Thomas.

2007-05-05T17:52:00.000+10:00

This is a quasi-follow-on from the previous post, so if you want (because I obviously couldn't force you to ... or could I?) read that before reading this.

If you'd followed the link in the previous post through, you would have also seen that I/this blog got described as being "seriously good on movies and cricket". Now that I certainly wouldn't take umbrage with. But what have I written about movies (not so much cricket, but still a proportion of it) is, again, my opinion, which is what seemed to cause the superciliousness of this blog. Strange thing that.

Regardless of that, I still want to write more about movies, and now that I've taken to handwriting blogs during tutorials about movies (using the diabolical scheme that I wrote about last month (or longer ago)), expect, when things quiet down for me, many more movie-related posts.

And I expect my "Last Five Movies I Saw" do-hickey will tick over at a ferocious rate come the holidays, as I've somehow bought fifteen DVDs that I've never seen before. Whimsical spending.

Thomas.

2007-05-05T17:14:00.000+10:00

Hmmm.

Apparently I (or my blog, it was hard to tell from the description) am supercilious, or at least perceived to be, by some persons (on that page, Deus Lo Vult is the nineteenth point down). My original reaction was to take an amount of umbrage at this description, which then resided when I had a think about what was written, and then mostly disappeared when I saw that there was a few definitions of the word supercilious that I hadn't used the word myself for before. Because, while I in no way aim to write in a style that presents me as:

haughtily disdainful or contemptuous, as a person

I would, however, be happy if people believed my blog was:

having or showing arrogant superiority to and disdain of those one views as unworthy

Because that's generally what I've tried to write with in mind. Wait, no, hear me out. This blog isn't an essay, it's not assessable, and there's no question or topic to write about. Yes, it is, in fact, multiple writings about my opinions of things and topics that pop into my head randomly. There is nothing that dictates what I write about, and there certainly is nothing dictating what I can say. Which is why I would expect a blog to have the styles of the second definition I have included above, and not the first. Because, for as supercilious as the blog may appear to be, the blog is not me. The blog is just characters on a screen, arranged in a certain way so that multiple meanings can be drawn from them. Thus, for someone who may, in fact, be in the demographic I was deriding in my previous post, they would read that as think that I was an offensive person to be saying such things. Then, perhaps, if someone came along who had had a similar experience as I had in that crowd, and read my post, then they may very well agree. Similarly, a
person may arrive at this blog and find that post rather funny. There's a variety of reactions that can be had to each post anyone puts up on any blog, least of all mine.

The question that is raised with the aforementioned description of this blog is that is it naive of a person to assume that the blog is the author and the author is the blog? Is what I write strictly and solely everything I believe on that topic, or is it just one little spiel at a moment in time and an attempt to illicit a response from an audience? It is my belief (and I have always written to this belief) that it is the latter, and I am certainly not this blog. Anyone who knows me knows that I hold many people of the senior generation in such a high regard it's rather strange. People who know me also know that I am also very easily annoyed, and something like being brushed by a hat is quite easily catalyst enough to just piss me right off. Does this make me a supercilious person? No, it does not. It makes me a strange, tightly-wound person who writes a blog to express his views on events in his life.

Which is why I didn't take any lasting offense at being called supercilious, because my personal opinion is that a blog and its author are separate entities within society, both with different functions. Of course, some may very well argue that they at more closely associated than I would have you believe ...

Actually, this is a good argument to run an example from. My opinion is that blog and blogger are separate. What I could argue, which would require consideration, listening and 'taking on' of others opinions or arguments, is that they are closer than I give them credit for. It doesn't mean I believe it, but it does show that I have the capability of critical thinking. But there's a place and a time for critical thinking (like an essay, or something that's assessable, or if there was a question or topic to write about), and it is not at a blog that I use to write my opinions on.
Purely and simply, this is an opinion piece. There's no serious research going on, and any evidence I bring in is merely there to back up my opinion. And my opinion does sometimes run against what I can, and have, argued in more formal settings. But how many people can really say they've answered an essay question with garble that they don't believe in, but they know that the lecturer does and, therefore, write with an audience in mind.

So, yeah, this blog may appear supercilious, and that's something I have no qualms about. If you think I am supercilious, you're wrong, and I have absolute disdain for your opinion and views and arrogantly disregard your worth. Not really, but you would have a hard time standing up to the argument that I'm supercilious.

Thomas.

2007-05-03T18:33:00.000+10:00

So today was the voluntary trek into the City to cheer on the cricketing world champions. Of course, as you would have seen on the news, there wasn't just two people standing at a barricade, rather a couple thousand all crammed in between two office blocks and a stage. And it was crammed tighter than a tin of sardines, or a CityRail train at peak hour. Either or.

However, we arrived rather early (what we thought was fifty minutes, but turned into an hour), and secured a spot 3 deep from the front. I wasn't all that displeased, until it got busier. Now, of course, Thursday 12pm isn't going to attract the population of Sydney - people work, people are students, people are busy. So who would you expect to see there? Fanatics, university students and retirees. And after this crowded experience, I have come to realise something.

For the deriding that my generation gets for being uncouth, rude and obnoxious (and I'm not about to say we're not), the older generation, 55+, they shouldn't be talking. I was elbowed, slapped, punched, head butted, kneed, glared at and inconvenienced more than I had ever been in my life! To my left: some old biddy. To my right: an old guy with a brimmed hat on. Behind me: a lady shrunk with age. In front of me: an old couple who couldn't decide on the weather. Let's start with my left shall we?

This lady had commuted in from some nowhere just to be here, so you would think that she'd be more interested in making the most of the day, rather than talking to two people who she'd never met. Alas, she wasn't, and my friend and I had to engage in conversation with her. Of course, she wasn't saying anything applicable, interesting or remotely true to the conversation we were having. Whatever that conversation was, because I certainly was conscious though it.

To my right, well, Satan couldn't have annoyed me more. Now I'm a frequent Akubra hat wearer. In fact, I think in all non-posed photo of me on my holiday (and then some that were) I have a black Akubra hat on. Now, do you know when I take it off? Indoors (because it's plain rude to wear a hat indoors) and when I'm somewhere crowded. Why when it's crowded? BECAUSE THE BRIM HITS OTHER PEOPLE'S HEADS! Being neither short nor tall, my brim doesn't brush against a person stomach nor ride above everyone, it generally hits other people in the head. That's if I left it on. Funnily enough, this jackass beside me, who hat a cricketing brimmed hat on with a stiff edge, left it on. And apparently he could see better with his chin on my shoulder and his cheek touching mine. Ok, that's not literal, but his best vantage point was leaning over my shoulder, so his hat again and again and again kept dinging into the side off my head. It's not all that annoying the first couple of times, but after the thirty fourth in half an hour (yes, I counted), it's plain rage-inducing.

Behind me, well, how can you be angry at someone who has been ravished by the process of aging? Quite easily when they kept trying to move you. I'm not talking about subtlety here, I'm talking about arms and hand grabbing you and trying to push you aside. Thankfully enough, I'm pretty solid, and the only thing that can move me has to be between the ages of 18 and 40. Not a 1800s relic. I did feel sorry that she couldn't see as well as she could - sorry that she could see anything at all actually.

And now for the persons in front of me. If ever I have encountered a more annoying, a more ruder, a more obnoxious couple in my life, I have no memory. They must have come from the North Shore, France or Melbourne because I was elbowed, I had my feet stepped on with high heels, received a face-full of gray and blue hair, and received not one single excuse me or apology from either Mrs. Ass or Mr. Ass. Either these people thought they were the centre of the universe or they were descendants of God. They were so arrogant. Let's take, for example, when Mrs. Ass tried to take off her jacket. The sun had no competition in the sky since the second it rose - there wasn't a single cloud and it certainly didn't look like rain or snow was on the horizon. So why would someone wear a jacket out? Well, apparently up her ass, this lady, while her head was there, detected a chill coming from somewhere. So she donned a jacket. And then when it got too hot, she decided to take it off. So, instead of either moving yourself within the space you take up or stepping away for more room, she decided to step back, onto me, ram an elbow into my chest, turn around, shove her shoulder into my chest as well, then take off her jacket and flop it all over me until she bundled it up. Quite an enjoyable experience. And when I say enjoyable, I mean crap house.

And that's just one story about this pair of insolent apes. I won't bother to recite in detail their problem with their empty cups and how Mr. Ass decided to attempt an achievement that The Flash could do, and walk through me (for reference, The Flash could walk through solid walls by vibrating), or how the lady couldn't decide if she wanted to watch the big screen on the left, the one on the right or the people that were making the damn speeches on the stage!

The common denominator: they were all old people that were pissing me off. Now, there were also three or four people who must have thought I was a thief or a mugger because the looks I was getting from old people just showed their mind: this person is going to steal my 1950s handbag, the pension cheque I got on Tuesday and the blue hair-dye I brought on the way in. I was more offended by the looks I was getting for daring to be in a congregation of old persons, who could only complain that this team wasn't a patch on yesteryear's teams, than being physically assaulted by those that surrounded me. And I wasn't the only one getting those looks; my friend who came in was getting them and this teenager near to us as well. Seriously, if my generation is rude, we only learned it from the senior generation that exists now, and there ain't no reason to improve if that's how we're going to be treated.

Anyway, despite my new-founded disdain for senior citizens, the day was enjoyable. We saw the gang turn up, say a couple of speeches, pose for some photos, then sign a thing or two. By now my friend had abandoned me to the crowd, otherwise I'd have been able to get photos and videos of Ponting, Hussey, Gilchrist and pretty much everyone who had turned up with The 18 Cup. But, alas, he had gone, and I was left to snap photos as best I could. I took thirty. These were the best seven:

The World Cup
Team photo one
Team photo two
Team photo three
Ponting
Hussey
Bracken

My favourites are team photo two and three.

I decided to leave by then because it was way too crowded with people fighting for autographs (similar to the way the crowds fought over the red hats that Emirates through out to the crowd. I tried my best to avoid getting one, but I ended up getting two), and people's stress levels had begun to go through the roof as a few verbal spats began to erupt between, you guessed it, old people and young people. Before I had a chance to weigh in and say something that I might have regretted (or at least caused a few heart attacks with) I snaked my way through the people, found my friend and we were out. But yes, an enjoyable day despite the problems.

Thomas.

Disclaimer: I don't hate all senior citizens, I despise those that I don't hate.

2007-05-01T21:34:00.000+10:00

I'll be going into Martin Place on Thursday (it's such a hectic life that a student leads) to cheer on our World Cup champions at the public reception for the Australian Cricket Team. If anyone else is making the trip in, drop me a line. I'll also be taking my camera along and The 18 Cup and praying that I can get a drunk/hung over cricketer to get a photo with it. Roy would be pretty cool, of course Cap'n Punt and Eric Gilchurch would rank at the top.

Thomas.

2007-05-01T19:35:00.000+10:00

I once swallowed Listerine (don't ask) and worried if the alcohol would put me over the limit, being a P-plater and all and not being allowed to blow 0.0001~. Well, I guess it turns out that I would have been over, because I've just found out that it's the beverage of choice for Northern Terrestrials. Don't know what I'm talking about? Here you go.

Yes, to replace the petrol sniffing that replaced the alcoholism, it would appear that with the advent of smell-free petrol to the bowser up north, Listerinism is all the craze now. What will those crazies think up next? The article suggests that it's an indigenous thing, but I'm sure I've seen a bogan or two sucking down a cool green, minty ale in my times out West. And North. And at Central Station, before getting mugged, because it's supposedly a crime hot spot now. Someone should tell them though that the No Frills mouthwash tastes like copper, and you're left walking round not with the minty-cool-fresh mouth feeling of Listerine (and you still have your barnacles on your boat), rather the feeling that you're sucking on a handful of loose change.

Something bad is seriously in the water up there. Probably from the nuclear tests that were done in and around that part of the world. I say we blame the British! Or the French. Why not both?

Thomas.

2007-04-29T15:47:00.001+10:00

Was there ever any doubt? You know what I'm talking about.

I only managed to wake up just now to write this, now I'm off to do something less strenuous.

Thomas.

2007-04-29T01:43:00.000+10:00

God obviously isn't a cricket fan. Damn I hate weather. This is why important events should be held in Australia: we don't get crap weather (hell, we couldn't pray for rain if we wanted to) and we have a stadium with a damn roof on it!

Why couldn't a gang of hoodlums hold up the bowler yesterday evening? At least I wouldn't have to watch a God-awful repeat of South Africa getting killed again without the entertainment of police and criminal evidence and what-have-you.

I'm giving this game another fifteen, then I'm going to bed. I've been up since 4:00am and don't plan to watch the sun rise if it means watching some half-assed, Twenty20 rip-off match rather than a real World Cup final.

Thomas.

Edit: Obviously the cricketing Gods fear the wrath of Thomas, because with three minutes left to the match, bing-bang-bam the covers were off and we had a 38 over a piece match ready to get started. Of course, I could be hasty with this edit and the rain comes back, but here's hoping for a good clean match and an Australian win.

Should have stayed up longer Markus.

Thomas.

2007-04-26T14:18:00.000+10:00

What an exciting (Edit: yes) night last night was. I was prepping myself early in the evening for an all-niter to watch the cricket semi-final, sitting in the computer, trying to chip away aet the mountain of work for university (which is the reason why updates have been absent from here as of late), when it all started. For an far less entertaining and detailed recount, simply watch any hourly news and you will see that a the Picnic Point Bowling Club was held up with people wielding machetes and a hammer. My house backs onto this club, and our back gate opens up to the greens. The patrons who fought back and the police who turned up caught two guys on the spot, while two ran for the hills. And whose fence did one of these intelligent fellows decide to jump over? Ours of course. Through our backyard he went, took off his recognisable clothing, left them in our garden, and opened our side gate before making a bee-line for the house across the street where I'm told he jumped their fence (and dumping off some more clothes) and made his way to Henry Lawson Drive (where he was subsequently caught). So from about 8:30pm onwards our yard was just filled with police looking at these clothes, talking to us, taking statements (my brush with fame was that when I heard the noises outside, I ran to my front window and watched as this person ran across our lawn and through the bushes across the road, the only person of our family to see him) and what have you.

Finally, 11:30pm rolled around and the cricket started. Of course, the police were still around, but that wasn't going to become me and my cricket. I can only imagine what the officers standing guard imagined what I was watching with the hysterics the match put me in. Seriously, South Africa are bigger chokers than Greg "Six Shot Lead" Norman. Smith should be outed as Captain, Kallis should be dropped and something done to their support team, like bring in a shrink for each person.

When the score was 6 for, the CSI team (no, seriously) turned up, enquired to the score and took photos, bagged the clothes and whatever else it is they did, then came back to the back door just to find out what the score was. In the time they were there, Australia had cleaned up the haphazard South African team and the CSI's strolled off laughing.

Then came the rather disappointing (of sorts) batting performance by Australia. Even when we win the Cup, I seriously think that domestic wicket keepers should be looked at for their batting vs. keeping performance. Gilchrist is still the best keeper in the world, but he simply cannot bat anymore. It just looks like his near-record century a while ago was a fluke. Either look at dropping him or dropping him down the order and opening with Hussey.

Anyway, 6:30am came around, match and presentations were done, and I went to bed. Woke up at 1:30pm to a phone call saying our house was on television and that camera crews had been all over the place all morning. While I was slightly bummed that I missed that, I was glad that I was able to watch another shambles performance by South Africa. Out of all the teams I enjoy watching lose, I enjoy watching South Africa lose the most. And especially like that.

Now to take care of the World's Biggest Cheats: Sri Lanka.

Thomas.

2007-04-18T18:06:00.000+10:00

Here's a tidbit of information anyone who knows me or reads my blog might find interesting: the workshop I teach of a Wednesday (yes, I actually teach stuff to first year students - me the resource of information as a second year) turned, today, into trying to explain Donnie Darko, firstly, to the people who hadn't seen it, and then secondly trying to explain to the people who have seen it why it's a 'disturbed' movie (with each person who has seen it having their own opinion as to why). Eventually it turned into a debate as to why traveling backwards in time to correct a problem or the like cannot work. Unfortunately, my poor students didn't know that I have thought long and hard about how stupid the notion of purposeful backwards time travel is (I even wrote a blog post about it) and it turned into some pseudo-science lesson. Everyone had some fun thinking about the idea before we got back on task - back to the boring stuff.

Thomas.

2007-04-18T17:30:00.000+10:00

Damn you England! I should have known better than to have any faith in you. 154!? How did we ever lose The Ashes to these hacks. Seriously.

And yes, Vaughan should quit, though as captain. He obviously fails to have any sort of effect over his team similar to Ricky Ponting or Grahame Smith, so why no give someone else a chance? You can't get any worse between now and the next World Cup. I mean, England won the Ashes, then went on to fail to win a single test series that they toured on, scrambled a few one day wins then lost 5-0 the next Ashes series. Now they can't even qualify for the World Cup. And maybe the lack of pressure will enable him to bat like a real batsman, rather than an English batter.

Thomas.

2007-04-17T19:10:00.000+10:00

For those who may have been wavering as to whether I was self-centred or not (not that there could possibly be anyone who is wavering if you've read this blog) here is a tale from my early morning today.

As everyone knows, I have the unfortunate dishonour of attending the University of Sydney. I still shack with the parents, so I am forced to travel the perils of CityRail any day I have to attend. My sister, after graduating Year 12 last year, secured a very respectable job at a law firm (where I did work experience so many years ago, and trust me: it's a hectic job she is doing), and too must travel into the city, and yes, is forced to put up with the atrocities of CityRail. Of course, working a real job means starting at 9am, unlike the cushy life of student who starts whenever they want to, so we rarely ever see each other on the train. In fact, there is only one day where we catch the same train, and we get on at either end.

Anyway, today, I was getting a train an hour after my sister. I was headed for the door when the phone rang, to which my father answered (he has a court case this week, so isn't going into work, otherwise I wouldn't see him until he passed my room headed for bed every night). Through the ensuing conversation, of which I could only hear one end, I deducted that my sister had fainted on a train or at a station. I was concerned. I waited until the phone call ended, then asked what happened. Indeed she had fainted, was receiving attention from a family friend that happened to be with her, and was not to worry. But it was too late; I was already worried.

But my aforementioned concern was not for the overall health of my sister, nor was my worry about her receiving the appropriate medical attention. No, it was that if she had fainted on a train or station before the East Hills line splits into two, I would be stuck on East Hills Station for God knows how long until they moved the train that was blocking the single line.

Now don't get me wrong, I wasn't not worried at all about my sister, but the first thing that sprang to mind was how inadequate the CityRail system really is, and that how inconvenienced I could have been now that my sister was unconscious somewhere.

Anyway, there is no need to worry ...

I got into the city on time.

Thomas.

2007-04-15T12:38:00.000+10:00

So South Africa lose again. All England need to do is beat them in their face off and England go through to the semis while South Africa ... well ... they go where they deserve. If South Africa win that match though, they are a guarantee to go through.

South Africa have a two point lead on England, with their final match against the Poms. England have two matches left, their other against the West Indies. Even if England go on to lose against the West Indies, but manage to beat South Africa (which is in the realm of possibilities given South Africa generally crack under pressure), England currently have (and probably will maintain) a better run rate.

This is a rare occasion, but I will be cheering England home.

Thomas.

2007-04-10T12:14:00.000+10:00

So when South Africa couldn't manage to beat even Bangladesh, I was hoping that the Australian team would throw their match against England so that South Africa and England went to equal points. Fortunately or unfortunately, that didn't happen, and now West Indies and England only need to win one match a piece of their important matches to equal South Africa.

I do hope former ranked number one South Africa don't make the semis. Bunch of hacks.

Thomas.

2007-04-07T22:35:00.000+10:00

The Masters suck this year. I wouldn't have watched past the first day and a half, but such are the problems of working at a golf course.

The standard of golf is very average for these players. And Augusta isn't even playing ridiculously hard this year. Hard greens (as Augusta has always had really) is about the only problem. And it's designed so that the big hitters are at an advantage, and you can even see players carrying round four woods rather than three or two. Mickelson is carrying round two drivers and is going atrocious. And that's someone who would be able to take advantage of long hitting.

Even though he is left handed.

Anyway, I'm glad I'll miss tomorrow's round. Unfortunately I'll have to watch Monday, though that being the final round, I'll have found someone to cheer for. As long as it's not Mickelson. Anyone but that bum.

Thomas.

2007-04-07T18:56:00.000+10:00

After reading this post at this blog about this site, I had to test if this sight was communist friendly. Apparently I am not.

The poor Chinese miss out again.

Thomas.

2007-04-05T16:11:00.000+10:00

To the people that have argued with me about the non-possibility of Barack Obama winning the Democratic primaries, then going on to the Presidential elections, so far I've been able to negate every argument of yours that Clinton is a shoe-in. From the fact that her policies are too left-wing to keep the centrists, the same voters that Obama can keep, to the "weight" of the Clinton name (a negligible point as it is the same surname of Bill, who has had the smear campaign on his hands for the past half a year), to the point that she is the most popular, even though all polls show that Obama has improved, and others that he has overtaken.

Now the only argument left, that Hilary can raise more money, seems to be out the door.

$25 million!? I had reservations about Obama and his fund raising abilities, but this just goes to show that he is popular enough among the people, not just the fat cats. Obviously, by the looks of that too, he has some fat cats in tow, but gee, that's some serious dough. And more surprising, Hilary only made $26 million. Does this show a waining in Hillary's popularity, if it's the case (of the neigh-sayers to the Obama cause) that most people like her more?

Thomas.

2007-04-05T15:56:00.000+10:00

The end of semester is going to be a whole basket full of fun. I can categorically say that I have had the worst that Sydney University can offer in terms of lecturers this time round. Not all of them, but I would say six (of the eleven) that I have had are absolutely horrible. In the past I've had one or two, at the most, who were bad. But this time they are truly abhorred in terms of style and presentation. And one of the subjects I'm doing, as a whole, should be cast out to the void of the universe - it seriously isn't fit to be spoken about, much less taught.

The only thing I'm looking forward to is the end of semester, as not only does this torment end, but I get to fill out evaluation papers for each and every subject. I've never written a totally negative one before ... but there's a first for everything. I've already begun to plan what I'm going to scribble down, and it isn't pleasant at all. No sir-ee. And when I do, I'm going to make sure it makes its way onto here in some form or another, just as a recommendation to all those prospective students of these awful lecturers to avoid at all costs.

Thomas.

2007-04-05T10:10:00.000+10:00

Ok, so where are we in terms of the World Cup? Australia sits on top, after run rate, with six points, followed by Sri Lanka, New Zealand and South Africa, again, all on run rate. If the end of the Super 8s was now, they would go through to the semifinals. Bringing up the final half is England and West Indies, on two points, Ireland and Bangladesh on zip.

There are fifteen matches to go (you can find them if you look). Assuming that a) Australia win all their matches, and; b) The favourites of the one-sided matches win, then the places in the semifinals hinges on these matches:

South Africa vs. West Indies
Sri Lanka vs. New Zealand
New Zealand vs. South Africa
South Africa vs. England
West Indies vs. England

Because it will help my next rambling, here are what the points table will look like before any of the above matches are taken into account:

Australia: 14
Sri Lanka: 8
New Zealand: 8
South Africa: 6
England: 4
West Indies: 4
Bangladesh: 2
Ireland: 0

With the South Africa vs. New Zealand match, that will change nothing in terms of either of these teams going through to the semis. However, if South Africa lose to the either the West Indies (who New Zealand beat) or England, and only one of those matches, they must win against New Zealand in order to stay in the top four. Of course, if they lost all three, England need only win one match match more, and from current figures, they would put South Africa out on run rate. If the West Indies can win all of their matches, they will move to eight points, two ahead of what South Africa's point total would be before the above matches are taken into account, therefore making them have to win two matches. This, in conjunction with the scenario against England putting them out, means that if they lose to England, and the West Indies do indeed win all of their matches (which after beating South Africa puts them ahead of England and equal to South Africa at that point, and run rate determines the placings), the must beat New Zealand in order to at least stand a chance at making the top four by run rate against West Indies. If England can beat the West Indies in their match, it doesn't stop the West Indies from becoming a threat to South Africa, but puts more emphasis on the South Africa vs England if South Africa loses against New Zealand. In this setting, South Africa have to beat the West Indies if the also lose to England.

So, in simple terms, losses to England and New Zealand means South Africa must beat the West Indies. Or, losses to the West Indies and New Zealand means that South Africa must beat England. Even in these two cases, it comes down to run rates, which South Africa is at a disadvantage already as they, after playing three matches, are at -0.35, while England is +0.02.

Thomas.

2007-04-04T17:22:00.000+10:00

I sat next to the worst person I have ever traveled beside in my life today. Rather than simply rambling on about the whole damned experience (which is what I did (internally) for the entire day effectively), I thought I would compose a letter to that anonymous person to throw a spin on the whole 'blog' stereotype:

Dear Rat-Face who sat next to me on the train today,

I gather from our encounter between Beverly Hills and Wolli Creek that you were disappointed having to sit next to me, what, with your demeanour, your expressions and your general uncouth ways. I do hope that you know that you were hardly doing me any favours by "gracing" the space beside me with your rather repugnant (in both appearance and smell) presence. In fact, you caused me inconvenience in that I had to lean again the hair-greased window beside me - hardly the highlight of my shirt's day.

Further, the way you acted while seated next to me reminded me of a National Geographic film I once saw that showed the abilities of 'domesticated' monkeys. Suffice to say, you are no domesticated monkey. You were one of those ratty, annoying, little apes that failed to learn a single association. The say you showed no respect for another person, the way you 'hogged' the room, the way you continually elbowed me as you rummaged through you backpack (that looked as though it had seen two World Wars), and of the utmost annoyance, the way you failed to move when I wanted to exit the confines of hell (or sitting next to you, it's your choice as to the proper description) showed that the socialisation process does indeed fail when you are trying to bring into the fold of society a half-wit.

I make no apology for stomping (or would it be kicking?) your backpack which you had oh-so thoughtfully shown me contained a portable DVD player which may or may not have been older than DVDs itself. I would have recommended that you upgrade your hardware, though I think you would struggle to understand the bigs words I use like "you" and "should". I hope that I caused irreparable damage to your hunk-of-junk, and that you will forever curse the day you sat next to "that" person.

Go and die of your own volition,
Thomas.

Thomas.

2007-03-28T19:56:00.000+10:00

I came upon (what I believe is) a good idea for future posts about movies. Yes, I know, more dreaded film posts. It's between those and general ranting that you actually get posts on somewhat interesting topics, I know, but I much prefer writing about movies.

Anyway, during yet another deathly-boring tutorial where it was dominated by the woman who thinks she knows everything (and, as a result, is extremely condescending in the way she talks to people), a man who likes to come off as smart to impress those of the opposite sex (though where knowledge of 1500s Europe ranks on the 'hotness' scale I have no idea) and the mature student who really does know the right answers, but feels so awkward and out of place that she hardly speaks up and have twenty-odd pairs of working eyes staring at her, I had an idea. I think it was between Vittoria and Native American's possession of their lands that I thought wouldn't it be cool if my favourite movies could fight to the death to see which was the greatest of all! Then my mind ran wild with ideas of Darth Vader heading the meeting in the secret war room during Dr. Strangelove, or Natalie 'Queen Amidala' Portman vs. Natalie 'Sam' Portman.

Of course, my thoughts digressed when it came to two Natalie Portmans, then further when Audrey Tautou got involved ...

Ok, getting back on topic, I thought that it would be pretty cool if I could invent some way to compare, contrast and show down the movies. So I scribbled down two types of, I don't know, maps?, diagrams at least, that I wrote down the similarities of the two films then, exercising the rigorous scientific methods of this idea, put a plus or two next to the film that did that similarity best. I then went and did the same to the differences, weighing up which difference made which film the better of the two. Then, come time to write it all up as a post, I'll outline how the two films are similar or different, then why which film got the plus. At the end, I'll add up the pluses, and if there were any minuses subtract those (such is the extent of my mathematics education), and then we will have an ultimate winner!

Ok, it probably sounds ridiculously confusing without seeing something on paper. However, because I like this idea, I'm going to go ahead and do it for a couple of pairings that I already thought of:

Amelie vs. Garden State (I suspect this will be the best, as these are rather similar films, yet different enough so that they are still unique)
The Star Wars Saga vs. The Lord of the Rings Trilogy (Quite the clash of the titans here)
The Godfather vs. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (I was rather surprised at how many similarities I could pull out of these two)

Of course, those are only six of the (figurative) endless films I've seen. And those are all from my "Top 10 List" to the right there. I'm happy to do other films that I've seen as well, or seek out films that I should have seen (after all, I do call myself a well-viewed film connoisseur) .

Thomas.

2007-03-28T19:32:00.000+10:00

Everyone loses. You lose, I lose, that weird guy down the street growing marijuana in his roof loses. We all lose. I guess that makes us all losers by the fault. Which would generally be a bad thing.

Well, I've never seen a film make such a compelling case to make the viewers want to be losers than this one. The message I suspect they are trying to get across is that it doesn't matter whether you win or lose, it's the actual journey of getting to the end, how you come to your result, that only matters. So, if you're honest to yourself, true to everyone around you, believe in yourself and not worry about what anyone else is thinking about you, then no matter if you are the winner or the loser, you really are the moral winner.

Little Miss Sunshine has a deceptive title. Everyone remembers the Little Miss books from their childhood (if you're young enough). They are happy little children's books with little to no substance between the pages other than colourful pictures and basic sentences. Got it? Ok, now dispell that notion because Little Miss Sunshine is extremely deep, packed with moral, ethical and personal questions, all thrown at you with the use of adult humour and a fantastic script. Not to mention delivered by the best assortment of character actors I've seen in the past year. I need not sing the praises of Steve Carrol; the comedic genius from The Daily Show a while ago, and of late, the US series of The Office (which a regular reader will know, I rate as one of the best).

Forgetting about the acting for now, because the movie is much more juicier than just that, what you have in this film is an M-rated positivity message that should be shown through schools. Of course, you'd have to hope that the kids can cope with the hilarious scenes, especially where the grandfather Edwin (the Academy Award winning role of Alan Arkin) tells his grandson to "Fuck a lot of women, not just one. A lot of women.", and scene after scene showing failure after failure of each character. Because that's how it goes down: each and every character fails in what they are trying to do except for one. And when the success of the one occurs, it brings the rest of the family together to rejoice and enjoy the moment in the spotlight.

So, while the whole family ends up being a loser in their endeavours, they all discover a whole new side to themselves - strength and character - and it's this process that is so entertaining, hilarious and moving for the audience that makes this film so damn good.

In other words: go see Little Miss Sunshine.

Thomas.

2007-03-28T18:58:00.000+10:00

Why? I don't remember the Queen ever having a slave running around for her. Especially since she was born ... wait for it ... 88 years after slavery was abolished within the British Empire! Yes, I know that the Slave Trade Act of 1807 is marked as 'the end' of the slave trade, but let's be serious here, slave traders were only being fined £100 for every slave they had - hardly a serious deterrent. It was in 1834 that all slaves were 'freed', and in 1838 released from a system which was slavery by every other name.

Don't get me wrong, I like to remind Poms that, while celebrating their "We got rid of slavery!" parties, that their country was the one that started the whole modern slave trade in the first place. But I don't expect anyone to have to apologise for it. After all, what did the Queen do? Hell, that dude might as well apologise to me for, say, saying that their country has a good cricket team and that the 05/06 Ashes Series would be the best ever.

Thomas.

2007-03-28T18:29:00.000+10:00

If I had stayed up to watch the cricket last night/this morning, stayed up to watch all the cricket, half of which ended up being rained off, I'd be pissed off. Hold on a second ... I did stay up to watch the cricket! And I am pissed off!

So now the West Indies are batting tonight - an innings that will go un-televised! So I got to watch Australia bat (something I know isn't their weak side) and miss their bowling (something I want to see if they (the selectors) have fixed). Far out Brussel sprout. Thank-you Channel 9 once again for ruining television once more.

And who gives a stuff about this bloody swimming!? Seriously, that is so 2000 Olympics. Can't we just pretend it's not happening and watch more cricket? Even if it's two minnow teams like India and Pakistan playing against each other. Because only minnow teams go out in the first round ...

Thomas.

2007-03-26T18:52:00.000+10:00

You will note that I didn't comment, nor even reference, the N.S.W. elections that came and went slower than a turtle on dope. That's because, well, I frankly couldn't give two hoots about what happened. Sure, I'm a politics fanatic, love the stuff, but that wasn't politics. That election, the way it played out, the whole deal, was just pathetic, abysmal and boring. Iemma and Debnam are up there among the most boring, incompetent and unelectable person to ever lead a party.

So, to keep with tradition, I'm not going to talk about the N.S.W. election any more. It's been done to death by a million other people. Besides, it gives me a chance to refocus my attention on Rudd running wild all over the Liberals and Nationals. Go Rudd!

Thomas.

2007-03-25T18:11:00.000+10:00

So here's what's going to happen. Australia, Sri Lanka, New Zealand, West Indies, South Africa, Bangladesh, England and Ireland are the final eight in the cricket World Cup. Ok, so Bangladesh isn't a part yet, but all they have to do is beat Bermuda to keep India out.

Out of these eight, my pick for the final four are Australia, New Zealand, West Indies and South Africa. There are only two possibilities for change: England (who I suspect will do a soccer World Cup and bomb, though they could surprise) and Sri Lanka (who just don't have the edge that the other five teams have). Either West Indies or South Africa are the two that could be left out for sake of England and Sri Lanka in my opinion.

I can't pick how the final four will go down until I see the draw. While I think Australia will get through with the most wins, the others are just too hard to pick. Ireland and Bangladesh are given victories to all the six real teams, England is a victory for Australia and New Zealand at the least, and Sri Lanka in the same boat there. The only question is will the "World #1's" of South Africa (and it's only a hollow title while you're not either the reigning World Champions, a part of the Ashes competition or Australia) fire up, and West Indies keep up their moderate-good performance to get enough wins.

Thomas.

2007-03-24T14:59:00.000+11:00

Bad News: Woolmer was murdered

Good News: Pakistan is out of the Cricket World Cup

Great News: India is 99% out of the Cricket World Cup

Strand-of-hope News: England could go out of the Cricket World Cup

Thomas.

2007-03-18T13:18:00.000+11:00

I've added a new element to my page on the right hand side over there, and for good cause which I will get to soon. It's a list of the last five movies I saw, so that I, and you, can keep track of what it is I'm doing. Of course, it's the last five new movies I saw. I'm not about to put in that I watched Donnie Darko for the umpteenth time a couple of days ago.

Now, the whole reason that I put that there was so that I could inconspicuously lead into a post about the latest movie I saw, The Last Kiss. I finally saw this last night after waiting the excruciating months between the release here and the release in the United States. Why was it an excruciating wait? Because it was reported to be a fantastic movie! And if you are one who doesn't take to other people's reviews of films (in which case you've probably stopped reading by now) then having the Hollywood golden boy, Zach Braff, in the film would be selling point enough, right? Wrong. Rachel Bilson, formerly of The O.C. fame, makes her film debut, with force.

I've only seen this film the once, so giving any sort of in-depth review would in no way do it justice. Instead, I'll just say that Zach Braff appears to be unable to anything wrong. Scrubs still goes strong (when most other shows are struggling to keep their viewer base). Garden State still stands the test of time. And now The Last Kiss. I originally said that Kiss was no State, but I think if I had second and subsequent viewings, it could be treated with the same esteem I give State.

Either way, The Last Kiss comes highly recommended from me. Go see it. The acting is superb, the whole plot, the development, and certainly the script is without a doubt up among the best of this year. But of all time? I'll have to see it a few more times to make that call.

Thomas.

2007-03-09T17:44:00.000+11:00

I have, for those who may be interested (and I have a feeling there won't be a whole lot of you), put up a few of my favourite photos from my trip (seventeen I believe) into my DeviantArt account gallery.

Linkage.

A mere seventeen from the 750+ that I took ...

Thomas.

2007-03-06T20:55:00.000+11:00

Ok, gather round fellow readers and I might relate to you yet another narcissistic story, only this time, with a new setting. No, I am not here to critique CityRail (though I could readily do that, trust me), or rip on the hallowed and prestigious University of Sydney (also something I could easily do), I'm writing, rather, about a little trip a trophy took to the other side of the world.

Yes, on my journey, I took with me The 18 Cup, with permission of course, in order to photograph it at all the landmarks/tourist spots/points of interest that I stumbled upon. These ranged across seven different countries, from London to Galipoli, Singapore to Venice and Krakow to Hong Kong. Of course, there was nothing to take pictures of in Hong Kong as, no doubt, Communism has killed off everything except slave labour and their own economy. Singapore too was a bit bare, but I took the obligatory photos there.

So, tracking my progress through my holiday, the first stop was Singapore, followed by England, then Turkey, and Poland, with the last significant photos in Italy. The points of interest for these places are as followed:

On the tray table on the first leg of my trip.

Singapore:

England:

Turkey;

Poland:

Italy (Venice):

Italy (Florence):

Italy (Naples);

Italy (Rome):

The Colesseum;
Pompeii (and again)(and again);
Trevi Fountain (and again);
Quirinal Palace (residence of the Italian President);
The Sistine Chapel;
On one of The Pope's carriages;
St. Peter's Square;
St. Peter's Basilica (and again);
Julius Caeser's something or other (burial place, place of his pyre?);
Monument of Vittorio Emanuele II;
A view from the Monument of Vittorio Emanuele II;
In front of Communist posters in Rome;
Hotel Bar after spending my last Euros.

And, if you had the patience and want to click each of those links, you would have found, yes, the photos. Apologies for being in some of them; I know that I make an awful photo, it's nothing new. Anyways, as is evident, The Cup has done quite a tour and, it should be known, went international after an impromptu defense in England against two Pom poker players. Without worry or second thought, the current champion stepped up, won, and became the first international champion to see the record books. Of course, some have raised the question "What if you lost?", which is simply like asking "When will Gilchrist bowl?": it's just not happening.

As a side note, the prize pool for the night was two pounds per player (to keep in line with the Australian rules, standards and regulations for The 18 Cup tournament).

I should also warn any 18 Cup players that should they travel abroad or be approached by tourists who, for some strange reason, think they are nationally and internationally renowned for their elite and masterful poker skills that they go along with the ride, lest I be found out to be lying! So I might have embellished some truths ... well, I certainly wouldn't have been lying about myself when I said some of the things anyway.

Thomas.

2007-03-05T20:38:00.001+11:00

Went to post ... jetlag kicked in ... now I'm not posting.

Thomas.

2007-03-04T21:35:00.000+11:00

Things I learned from my trip:

- The free Internet-enabled computers at Singapore Airport are no good for posting comments on blogs
- Istanbul sucks
- Don't walk into a British pub and say "Who wants to drink!"

Yes I have returned, triumphant and victorious. Alas, my chariot broke down, so I had to hitch a ride with Qantas, but none the less, I'm here in one piece.

Which is slightly better than The 18 Cup is, let me tell you.

While on my gallivant around the world I thought up quite a few interesting blog posts, then drowned some of them in beer, then started to think of them again, and to make sure I didn't forget them again (because the drinking never really stopped) I wrote them down. The last thing I wrote was on a Qantas napkin, and it's quite full. So rest assured, along with the boring, long and somewhat uninteresting stories that you get with a Jet-setter, you'll get the standard, boring, long and somewhat uninteresting blog posts that you get with this Jet-setter.

However, not tonight. Yesterday's thirty-six hour day has knocked the wind out of me, and it seems that tonight and my return to university tomorrow will be used to catch up on sleep. Damn jet-lag.

Thomas.

2007-02-06T12:38:00.000+11:00

In an attempt to perfect the are of "show-offistry", I write this message a mere two and a half hours before check-in.

I leave for a holiday today, gallivanting across Europe for a month. I shall attempt to get in contact somewhere on my extravagant trip as the novelty of posting from abroad is appealing.

If not, see you all come the 3rd of March.

Thomas.

2007-02-02T20:55:00.000+11:00

Well well well.

Ok, what is your opinion on the unequal distribution of G.S.T. revenue among the states, and what will be your individual approach (assuming that you won't have a collective approach as neither Labour or the Liberals will touch you with a ten-foot, twenty-foot, thirty-foot poll) to this issue?

Or exactly how are you going to tackle the issue of the problems at Auburn hospital? What sort of fiscal proposal will you submit or suggest to the Premier to alleviate these pressing troubles in your electorate?

And with these national terror laws you're attempting to abolish at the state level, what would you have in their place? Wait, that's right, you would have nothing and wait until we actually have an attack in Australia. Because only after the attack do we have terrorists, right? I mean we of course wouldn't have terrorists in our borders before an attack. It's common sense people!

Oh, and it's nice to see Mr. Habib rewriting the dictionary to include "no school, no study, people are staying in the streets looking for jobs" as a form of torture. I thought the Yanks saying waterboarding wasn't a form or torture was a bit far-fetched, but this is off the scale at the other end.

The end result is this: there's another whack out there thinking that he should go to some level of government so that everyone can hear his voice louder. His story should be listened to. His injustice is noteworthy. But government isn't a place for activism. Otherwise the Greens and the Socialist Alliance would have much more popularity. What people want are level-headed, commonsense, real-shit people. Not this guy.

I refrained from commenting on that idiot Mundine's supposed run for government, and then Sheik Retard's rumoured run, then his blessing or support or what ever of (expectedly) Muslim candidates. But this was too good to leave out. It had best be obvious and crystal clear to the people of Auburn that this guy has no political know-how or idea as to how things are run or what the hell he should do if he gets elected, because it's bloody clear to me!

Thomas.

2007-02-01T16:55:00.000+11:00

Next time America decides to invade and take-over another country, they should forget about Iran or Syria and head straight for Britain. Fucking hell! There's got to be more terrorists there than the whole of the Middle East! This is, what?, the sixth terror plot to be "foiled" by the Bobbies in the past few years? And how many terror attacks did Saddam have in the works? Wait, that's right, none!

Wait, I think I'm onto something here. I mean, it's a hotbed for terrorists this Britain, it's been an aggressive international power for many, many years, had an "evil" empire for a while (it still does some would argue), has been responsible for genocide in the past, has been an ally and an enemy of the United States. If you didn't know better, you'd think I'd be talking about Iraq, wouldn't you?

Ok, so after thinking it over, I will submit the following proposal to the United States Embassy as soon as all the fine details are done. But, while in its rough and shell-stage, I'm prepared to let everyone have a little look at the next chapter in the War on Terror.

The War on Terror - Stage Three - Tea Party 2.0

- Using up-to-date satellite imaging, secure mappings of latest topography, landmarks and infrastructure of Britain. Done;
- Co-ordinate with the Chief-of-Staffs to formalize the most effective and least cost-of-life attack plans. Done;
- Secure allies in the attack. Suggestions include: Scotland (history of conflict, recent instability), Ireland (history of conflict, recent hotbed of activity), France (extensive history of conflict, recent international troubles), America (history of conflict), Australia (recent hotbed of activity), Germany (Arch-nemesis);
- Formulate specific and effective fall-out plan. Done;
- Ensure all sources, intelligence and information is accurate and up-to-date, i.e. use reputable sources like this, this, and this;
- Have a high-profile, political figure deliver any presentations so as to persuade all administrations that this is legit. Subsequently, this will be one of the many fall-guys with little blame;
- Kick ass! OOOO-RAAAH!!!

Thomas.

2007-01-30T21:38:00.000+11:00

You know 24 is back on when Jack Bauer can be released from a Chinese prison camp, after two year of torture and concentration-camp treatment, step off of a non-stop China to L.A. international flight, bite out a terrorist's jugular, un-cuff both of his hands while cuffed, then jack a car using only a paint can.

And he just managed to neutralise an armed guard with a tree-branch.

Then a pair of choppers blew up a residential home.

This is why we love 24.

Thomas.

2007-01-28T14:10:00.000+11:00

After posting that last post, I went through and had a look at all the posts that were uncompleted drafts, and saw that some just couldn't be completed or the moment had passed and were no longer applicable. So, I've decided to make a post out of the un-postable.

Here's what I was writing when the third Ashes Test was happening, just after the first day or two when, notably, Monty had finally been included in the team:

Is there a spare seat! I've been knocked to the ground by an actual cricket match!

Who did England get in the past few days to teach them the ropes of this sport? Who? This certainly can't be the same team that got flogged at the GABBA and then slaughtered at the SACA. But, then again, it ain't. Monty Panesar and Sajid Mahmood are in, Ashley Giles and James Anderson are out, and what a difference it's been!

While Mahmood's impact on the match, so far, has been low-key, having a new bowler in the line-up, one ready to prove himself and show that he can compete with the big-boys (of which hardly any other English cricketer has shown thus far on the tour) will sprick up a team with his individual enthusiasm I think.

And then there is Monty. Already turning the game around. Why the selectors didn't put him in, as has already been said a million times, is ridiculous for whatever reasons. Talking about it can't change the fact England is two to zip in the series thus far.

Like I said, some things just can't be completed. That because the test is long gone and because England lost, horribly again, and while Monty had a part to play, Mahmood was a bit of a disappointment, and continues to be. Whether that's the selector's fault, his fault, or the team's, it's hard to judge.

Here's the start of a post I would have finished if: a) I had saved the picture of the graph that you get when you do the Political Compass test, and b) If I could be stuffed going and doing the test again to try and get the same result to get the picture of the graph again. Anyway, here goes:

So here is the worrying truth. Over to the right there can e found a link to something called the Political Compass. By now everyone would have heard of it; it's very popular among bloggers and people who are interested in politics (of country and themself).

Now I take it twice a year, and have done so for about three years now. There has been a worrying trend as I do this that my little red dot has been moving lower and lefter since I took the test towards the end of last year in comparison to when I took the test the three times prior.

To my shock, awe and horror ... well, I'll let the picture tell you.

Left! I've hit the left! What has happened? In the beginning of the year some can imagine my surprise when I found the dot four spaces to the right and on the horizontal. While still on the right of the centre, it was a dramatic difference to my original testings on it when I was at the extreme right (I was probably off the graph) and a couple of spaces from the utmost top. And for three tests it hovered around there.

Now look where I am!

That was a worrying period. Worrying enough that I haven't gone and done the test again to scare the bajeezers out of me again. Out of sight, out of mind, right?

Another cricket post, and this one lasted for a couple of lines before I ran out of effort. I still think it would make for a good post, and certainly a talking point:

Is Kevin Pietersen the last great modern player?

Obviously batting, and cricket, is entering a new phase. This modern era doesn't exactly value technical finesse as much as it does 'flashy' play. Prime examples of that are Brett Lee, Fred Flintoff, Shoaib Akhtar, Adam Gilchrist (probably a rare example of holding abilities from both eras)

I was going on the basis that Pietersen is quite effective in his unorthodox, unique and non-textbook style, and anything further away from 'the textbook' would only begin to create bad batters.

This was the start of my post when the latest comments from everybody's favourite Sheik hit the waves:

The best thing about last straws is that no matter what their weight is, they break the camel's back. Whether it's light or heavy, the camel is fucked.

But my motto is if you're going down, you go down in a blaze of glory.

Just like this.

Seriously, this guy is so friggin' hilarious that I almost hope that there are no repercussions.

Then again, I think of all the poor people that this guy represents ... actually, no, they aren't poor people. Even though this guy represents a community of people who are already claiming persecution, racism etc., nothing is going to be done by the people he represents. Just like last time.

Now, don't put word's in my mouth. I'm certainly not saying that what Sheik Dropkick says is what all other Muslims believe, but with Joe Blow, out in the 'burbs, living his 'white' life, surrounded by other people living in exactly the same fashion, watching exactly the same news, reporting on exactly the same sources, something interesting happens.

See, supposedly (by Sheik 2x4's expectations), 'white' Australia and the media just needs to be given an inch and we'll take a mile. What does that mean? Apparently we're predisposed to hate Muslims.

That last post may come off as a little abrupt, but do note that I never finished, and never had a chance to explain my position or smooth over any abrasive parts.

So those are the drafts I'm talking about, and the drafts that will now remain drafts forever. I do have two movie and a politics posts that I can and will finish because they are already lengthy and a few lines from complete. Plus, I can motivate myself into finishing them because the topics are so good. So keep an eye out for them.

Thomas.

2007-01-28T14:08:00.001+11:00

Ok, so lack of updates around here are coming to be more expected than updates. Apologies concerning this. I do have posts that are nearly ready to be posted, existing as drafts unpublished, however, after I get to a point in writing them, creative juices and self-motivation disappear as quickly as they came. I will, though, endeavor to get them up soon, even if it means I just end up posting what it is I had left as the draft.

But, at the moment, I have been occupied with one or two things. First, the recent influx of polls I'm seeing on blogs has inspired me to try my hand at them of my own. At least it will give those visitors something to do when they see, once again, no updates.

Second, the first poll it about something else I've seen a lot of. While I have, for a very long time, renounced the idea of creating a MySpace account for myself, after a few recent social functions, and being asked "Do you have a MySpace account?" to which I would reply "No, I have a blog." would would be followed by a collective groan of boredom, I think it might be time to bend to popular opinion once again.

Third, I've begun to upload videos to YouTube. Now, before you flock over, as I know you all will, to see if there is some sort of Thomas rant-esque video plaguing the Internet's tubes , I've only uploaded some videos of birds and a lizard that I've encountered. Soon I'll put up something of our pet bird, rather than wild, savage and crazed ones. After that, well, it could be followed by a video of an 18 Cup tournament, then who knows.

Fourth, and really the best thing I am working on at the moment, is an email/essay/flame-mail about a site called godhatesgoths.com I'm not about to link to the site, lest I give it even one piece of traffic through my site. However, suffice to say, it snagged my interest after being alerted to this site. I emailed another church/cult/persecution church not so long ago that I shall not link here lest my blog appear in a search for the site. Suffice to say, however, it was far worse and far more disgusting that the site I am currently examining.

I say I am writing an email/essay/flame-mail because that's exactly what this is going to turn out to be. It has the structure and style of a Sociology1002 essay, it's getting to them by email and, best of all, I was them to read it and get angry. I will be posting it here for all to read in it's glory, however, I do warn that you must really see the irony and satire in it before you think that I actually am calling your God a Nazi or a Goth. Because those are two conclusions I come to.

Fifth, and last, the blog will go on a hiatus between the 6th of February and the 3rd of March, plus any additional days it takes for me to recover from jet-lag. Yes, Thomas is going on a trip, and in an effort to not show off, I'll only list the countries I'm going to, rather than any real specifics: Singapore, U.K. Turkey, Poland, Italy, China. Suffice?

Thomas.

2007-01-20T16:00:00.000+11:00

Here's something from my Year 12 days that might be of interest to English teachers and students alike. Our year, the graduating year of 2004, sucessfully argued that a game (for example, a P.C. game or a console game etc.) was not only a text type, but could be used in an assignment as a supplementary text. I think it could have been the crowning achievement for the Advanced Class there. While originally I was only along for the ride (the ride of debating with my favourite teacher), as of late, I have been wondering if this was a valid argument, and will we see more 'adstract' text types in the future? Perhaps.

But of special interest to someone, how long until we see blogs as a text type that are being studied and referenced in high school classrooms? I had to study a diary of someone, write three journals of my own and write 'opinion pieces'. Aren't some blogs one, if not all three, of these things? Sure, there exists the fabrication, 'seriousness', truthiness, reality and validity element to a blog, but without a doubt there are some serious blogs out there that certainly could be studied, thus ruining the experience of blogs for the next generation, just as English ruined the experience of movies for me.

Thomas.

2007-01-14T14:34:00.000+11:00

Anyone who is currently watching the Australian decimation of the New Zealand cricket team is missing out on a cinematic gem! Right now, Channel Seven, Frank Sinatra is singing his way through the Peninsular War, fighting against that horrid Napoleon alongside silver-screen great Cary Grant.

No, seriously, not a joke. The Pride and the Passion is classic 50's film, classic Sinatra and a black mark on Grant's career. The same sort of thing a 22-run over is for Shane Bond is, which easily turned that match from a "We could do this" to "No fucking chance".

New Zealand: Australia's second foe.

Thomas.

2007-01-13T17:45:00.000+11:00

So here's my take on time travel. I know, this comes from left field, but it's something I've thought about because it sends my mind into some drug-free psychedelic state, along with thinking what our Universe is in, what there would be if the Universe never existed, what happens in and through a Black Hole etc.

Ok, so in high school we were taught that there is a finite amount of matter in the Universe and that we can neither create or destroy, only re-appropriate the 'make-up' (i.e. from liquid to gas through heat, adding a proton to hydrogen atom to create a helium atom etc.). Granted, this was in high school, so they probably dumbed it down ... way down. But this makes sense to me: there is only so much in the Universe, a finite amount of whatever, which was created at the start, or was there at the start, with the Big Bang.

Now, at any given point in time, you are made up of matter, yes? In fact, while you exist within time, you must be made up of matter, otherwise you physically cease to exist. Now, let's say I went back a day - I think it would be safe to say that the matter that makes me up now is, for 90%+ of it, the same as what made me up a day ago. Sure, I've shed dead skin, had some hairs fall out, shaved etc., but the same carbon, calcium and other solids that make me a tangible item in the Universe are pretty much unchanged between 24 hours ago and now.

So, yeah, I've gone back a day in time: where is the matter that would make Future Thomas up? That's right, it's doing its job making Past Thomas up. So here's what could happen: all the matter that I (Future Thomas) need to make myself up with (because, remember that I've also gained matter, i.e. eating, drinking etc.) reappropriates itself to become me, the Future Thomas in the Past World, which, effectively kills Past Thomas, and could very well destabilise the atomic make-up of, say, the hamburger I ate last night. And with this change in atomic make-up, it could cause major problems - from an implosion of matter to something like a nuclear explosion.

I haven't had any successful scientific experiments to prove what the major problems could be, but suffice to say there would be problems if matter was just being reassigned to a new physical presence in a world that it shouldn't be in.

Ok, now onto the second problem - let's say that I did travel back in time and 'sucked' all the matter I needed to me to make Future Thomas exist in the Past World. That would kill past Thomas. Then if I died yesterday, Future Thomas would never have existed, and thus, never have travelled to the future to travel back in time, right? But it was the act of Future Thomas travelling back in time that killed Past Thomas, and thus caused Future Thomas to not even exist. It's a vicious loop, and not confusing when you think about it. So what would exactly happen? Well, it's a bit hard to say, but it might just be that someone could travel back in time, and from the split-second that the Future Person comes into existence in the Past World, no longer does Past or Future person exist. At all. They simply disappear into free-floating matter, moving about the Universe with no purpose.

Oh, but wait, that matter had a purpose over the next thousand years: whether it be ashes in an urn, a skeleton in a museum, bones in the ground, anything. So that matter, those particles to the atom, actually had a purpose that was deviated when the Past and Future person ceased to exist. So not only would those persons stop existing, but whatever those particles went on to create or become. Which changes the whole course of the future in a second, and, possibly, destroys reality and the delicate balance of the Universe.

So the message behind this post: celebrate Easter.

Thomas.

2007-01-11T11:20:00.000+11:00

As my holiday fast approaches, I've been banking on my person trait of distracting myself with anything I can get my hands on from an impending important event. It happens during assignments, exams, beginning and end of semesters etc. that I find I can write many blog posts without putting much effort into the actual thinking and writing process.

But do you think I could think or write anything for the past few months? Nope.

And I've had a think about this for the past couple of days, being irate at myself for mot being able to churn out a substantial post for quite some time, and I've realised I'm certainly not helping myself in any way to think of a topic. In the (roughly) three months I've had off, I've read one book (American Hoax), am part way through another that really should have only taken three days to read (some religious hokey-crap), watched two seasons of Desperate Housewives, the third season of Arrested Development, played Lord of the Rings: Battle for Middle Earth (a P.C. game, which I find is too easy now) and ... that's it.

No, seriously, that's all I've done that has been noteworthy and memorable. Every other hour has been consumed by either mindless employment or sitting staring at one of the following:

My desktop background;
My MSN list, trying to figure out who I dislike the most;
Staring at an empty Blogger posting window or;
Listening to my music as I do one of the above.

And I've spent three months doing that! God, how the hell have I managed to do that? I have absolutely no idea. At one point in my life I'd have said such boredom would have pushed me over the edge into some sort of crazed state. Now it's just ... normal. Rather strange, I think.

Wait, I thought of some movies I watched. I saw Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. Now that's a movie that deserves more than a simple mentioning. I may return to it at a later date (who am I kidding, I probably won't), but what I'll say here is that it is the perfect, and I mean that, text for Extension 1 English for the Crime Fiction module. Perfect, except that it's rated MA. It's a classic send-up of the crime fiction genre. It's very funny, and very ... poignant. At least to a crime fiction fan.

I re-watched Gangs of New York, which wasn't as good as I remembered, though still quite good.

I also saw, for the second time, and the first time outside of a movie theatre, Troy. I learned much from this historical movie, primarily: Brad Pitt is a bad actor. A very bad actor.

I also saw, for the first time, All The President's Men, and while it suffers from the marks of the era it was made in, it still is something that should be shown, or spoken about, more often. Especially in this day and age. There are significant undertones in this film that I suspect would be very applicable in this day and age, what with C.I.A. wire-tapping, half-truths and secret agendas. Funnily enough, those three listed items both occurred in the movie and right now.

Girl, Interrupted turned out to be a very interesting movie in that it addresses issues of the same type, and in a very similar manner, raised by One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest. Obviously Cuckoo's Nest addresses some wider social issues under the guise of the personal struggle and journey of McMurphy, but, while looking at the personal plights of Randle and Susanna, that they are both misunderstood by the "norm" of society, while completely understood and, most importantly, accepted by the outcasts and the "misunderstood" (as deemed by the authority figures that are also in stark contrast and intentional opposition to the main characters) that they find themselves surrounded by within the institutes they arrive at, we see that problems (as perceived by the creators of both movies) have hardly been alleviated, with nearly twenty five years of (supposed) social evolution between Cuckoo's Nest and Interrupted.

I feel it worth mentioning about now a rare conversation I had with my father. Our favourite movies came up, and I said I had two different lists of favourite movies. Further in our talk, I was asked why I had two lists, and I said one was favourites and one was recognising the technical aspect of the film. I then made the remark that high school English had destroyed the full enjoyment of a movie for me. I had to explain why. The above few paragraphs probably explain why: I can't actually watch a movie these days without thinking about how Kiss Kiss Bang Bang would fit into the Crime Fiction module, or how Girl, Interrupted shares a surprisingly similar social critique as a movie made twenty five years before it.

Well, looks like I've managed to churn out a post longer than four lines, so I'm happy. I'll return to my comatose state of staring and nothingness now.

Thomas.

2007-01-02T13:30:00.000+11:00

Looks as though Channel Ten has brought rights to The Late Show with David Letterman. Probably a show that's not the most popular of all possible purchases, though, they are showing it significantly earlier than Channel Nine ever did, which shows belief in it by the Ten administration, and after watching last night's episode, I happen to concur with this thought, and think it's a show that could pass for a 10:30 - 11:00 p.m. spot, with the right advertising of course.

The only problem with the show is, that, after all, it's the generic American talk-show, a genre that doesn't fill Australian T.V. at the present. And then, of course, the humour in the jokes emanates from American culture, which can at times be drastically different from ours. So with this in mind, unless there are more people like me who have their hands stuck to the keyboard and can actually get in touch with the American culture, and let's face it, a very small portion of the audience is like that, I shan't expect to see the show much earlier any time soon.

Thomas.

2007-01-01T13:35:00.000+11:00

Langer retiring!

Although we won the Ashes back, we look to be losing a lot more.

Thomas.

2006-12-31T17:22:00.000+11:00

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.

2006-12-30T21:33:00.000+11:00

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.

2006-12-30T21:29:00.000+11:00

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.

2006-12-25T21:12:00.000+11:00

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.

2006-12-24T15:24:00.000+11:00

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.

2006-12-23T15:38:00.000+11:00

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.

2006-12-22T20:25:00.000+11:00

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.

2006-12-22T19:57:00.000+11:00

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.

2006-12-19T16:10:00.000+11:00

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.

2006-12-15T17:10:00.000+11:00

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.