Does Barack Obama understand my empty diary fear?

A friend of mine has just had a baby. Motherhood fills me with “car crash” fascination but I managed to participate in some semblance of polite conversation by asking her if she was scared. For her, the most perturbing aspect of imminent motherhood was that, post due date, her diary was… blank. Admittedly, the stark white pages are an apt symbol for the uncharted territory upon which she was embarking. How can one plan for a future they have no former understanding of?
Ironically, I can now empathise with her seemingly blasé answer, albeit in a very different way. Like Obama, I have made a drastic career change for 2009. I have left teaching for journalism; gone are the common garden parents evenings and report deadlines that have filled my new diaries for the past five years. I am left in an abyss of uncertainty.
So in some very small, inconsequential way, I think Barack and I have a connection. Arguably Barack Obama is one of the most inexperienced presidents to date. Even Peanut farmer Carter had a stint as governor. Therefore I am curious how he feels about his new diary. In one of his rousing campaign speeches, he talked of shutting the page on past policy and turning to a new chapter. While the metaphor fits nicely with my point, he should not be too hasty.
Obama has apparently been reading up on Lincoln recently. I hope this is not just part of the carefully coiffed media campaign that surrounds the “Barack Phenomenon”. Historian, James McPherson, argues: ‘A president who reads history, knows history and realises the value of understanding history.’ Before one ventures into the unknown, it is crucial they make sense of what has gone before them. Yes, America needs change but Obama must ensure he firstly has an intricate understanding of what, exactly, he is changing and the inevitable consequences; secondly he must calculate how he can create new policy that will not mirror mistakes of the past.
His problem is that he faces too many problems and everyone is banking on him to solve the woes of the world. Internationally he needs to edit “War on Terror” rhetoric without seeming weak; remain strong in his dealing with countries that pose a nuclear threat like Iran and keep the up and coming superpower of Russia, China and India at bay. Domestically he needs to take on the albatross that is the economic recession with additional problems including social security, tax redistribution and amending NAFTA to appease the protectionist contingent. He is also operating under the all consuming cloud of climate change.
Can Barack Obama dodge all of the obstacles and pitfalls that have harangued presidents of the past? It is difficult for even the most optimistic to believe that he the magical exception and his bi-partisan, technocrat approach, focusing on “what works”, may actually end up satisfying no-one. His cabinet appointments have already disappointed female academics. Only 5 out of 20 jobs have gone to women and critics feel that this does not represent the kind of change that they had hoped for. Homosexuals are upset with his decision to have Pastor Rick Warren lead the invocation on Jan 20th. The cynical may argue that the Barack campaign for change has encouraged all facets of society to look into a magic mirror and perceive the change they want to see rather than read between the lines carefully and actually see the moderate, pragmatic approach that Barack believes he has never hidden. He may have been ideologically saddled with far too much baggage and if that is the case then some has to be culled or he will fall.
Suddenly my empty diary seems slightly less worrying.

Poll an All-Nighter

In the Electoral College the vote is not directly proportional. Each state is allocated votes based upon its population. Winner of popular vote=winner of all ECV votes (except Nebraska and Maine) This is why 3rd parties/independents have NO chance- 1992 Ross Perot 19% pop vote but ECVs? Not a sausage.

1st candidate to get 270 ECVs, wins. Sounds simple...
3X the president has won election without winning popular vote- last one being in 2000

ECV Heavy weights are California (55), New York (31) and Texas (34) HOWEVER they have boringly voted the same way (D/D/R) since 1976, Swing states are what you want to watch out for.
Battleground states- these are where battle is actually fought. Historically the friskiest states have been Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania. But this year many believe that the election will be fought in the mountain states- Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico

What channel shall I watch?
Sky- have created own mini White House in Biscayne Bay, Miami. 54 ft yacht, loads of special guests. Live coverage 11pm-6am with key reporters in D/R camps and battleground states

BBC- Dimbleby joins BBC America anchor Matt Frei for live coverage 11.15am-6am. They will also have detailed analysis from Jeremy Vine and ABC former anchor Ted Koppel. They will have reporters in swing states, with bloggers in Times Sq and John Simpson will be charting black reaction

ITV- Trevor McDonald will introduce proceedings with the News at 10 and live coverage will begin from midnight. Principal coverage will come from Washington Correspondent John Irvine, International editor Bill Neely and senior correspondent James Mates.

CNN are holding (in their words) "The most demanding and technological production" it has ever staged. There will be minute by minute reportage with John King. He will use a "magic wall" to break down data from key states.

Staffing numbers-
BBC- 50 permanent +125
ITV 15-20
Sky 40

Your Guide to Election Night (timings based on 2004)
11pm- coverage starts but nothing much happens for awhile so kick back and decide who you are backing- McCain or Obama? If you are going red, have a tipple of McCain’s favourite tipple: Stoli vodka. If you are going blue then unfortunately Obama’s favourite drink is water. Bad luck.

1.20am North Carolina
ECV- 15
Polls-Toss up
2004 R
Demo- 74% W 22%B
Important info- Hasn’t gone D since 1976, Economy and black vote, could be state that decides if Obama wins easily
Eat: Sweet potato chips

1.40am Virginia
• ECV 13
• Polls- D leaning
• 2004 R
• Demo- 73% W 20% B
• Important info- Traditional R but gradual shift seen in 2006 senate race, Northern Liberals, last time state went D was 1964
• Eat: peanuts and maybe have a cigarette if that is your thing

2am New York
• ECV- 31
• Democrat state
• Eat/Drink: Long Island Iced Tea and a bagel with a schmear

Texas
• ECV-34
• Republican big hitter
• Eat- BBQ chicken- finger lickin' good

3.16am- Missouri
• ECV 17
• Polls-D solid
• 2004- D
• Demo W 84% B11%
• Important info- Has voted with presidency in every election bar one since 1900. High turnout for D primary and BO hails from neighbouring Illinois
• Drink- copious amounts of Budweiser

3.40am – Pennsylvania
• ECV-21
• Polls- D solid
• 2004- D
• Demo- W 84% B 10%
• Important info- BO lost to HC by 10 points in primary- blue collar workers. He needs to appeal to urbanites as Mc will win in rural areas
• Eat- have a slice of shoofly pie (treacle tart)

4am California-
• ECV- a greedy 55
• A democrat safeseat
• Drink- open a bottle of Jacob's Creek

4.22am- Colorado
• ECV 9
• Polls- D leaning
• 2004- R
• Demo- W 74.5% B 3.8%
• Important info- D convention held here, Big D win for Dem Governor Bill Ritter 2006. BUT McCain comes from neighbouring Arizona
• Drink- time for another brewski? Make it a Coors

5.27am Florida
• ECV 27
• Polls- Toss up
• 2004- R
• Demo-65.4% W, 14.6% B
• Important info- OB has lead despite lack of campaigning for primary. Ghost of voting debacle 2000
• Eat- If you have room, cut a slice of key lime pie

6am- Ohio
• ECV 20
• Polls- D leaning
• 2004- R
• Demo 84% W, 10% B
• Important info- Major battleground in 2004, McC- huge appeal in south but Reps have faced scandal in state. OB needs to tackle blue collar workers and opposition to free trade agreement he has endorsed
• Drink: Breakfast time! Nurse the hangover with a bloody mary- tomato juice is Ohio's state beverage

You may need to go to work now…

4.34pm Nevada
• ECV- 5
• Polls- Dem leaning
• 2004 R
• Demo- 65% W, 6.8% B, Hispanic 19.7%
• Important info- BO is counting on influx of outsiders- 10% population increase in last 3 years. Latinos like McC’s moderation on immigration. Deciding factor could be stance on proposed nuclear site at Yacca Mountain. McC for, BO against

Another important state that didn’t call before Bush reached 270 in 2004
New Mexico
• ECV 5
• Polls D leaning
• 2004 D
• Demo- 44% W, 1.9% B and 42.1% Hispanic
• Important info- part of the trio of mountain states set to decide election. Famous for recent nailbiters- Bush won by 6000 votes in 2000 and Kerry won by 600 in 2004. Both candidates believe they have advantage- McC due to Arizona roots and Bo because of his endorsement from popular state governor Bill Richardson
• Drink- Hair of dog? Grab a bottle of Sol and stick a wedge of lime in it

What do you do if you want to go to bed before 6am?
New Hampshire may only have 4ECVs but it has historically been a good indicator of the eventual winner
The other theory goes, if one candidate wins Florida (27), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio(20), North Carolina(15) and Virginia(13) then they are a pretty safe bet!

Male Bonding- going back to your Neolithic roots

Hunting? Bad. Against the law even. Nevertheless men need to fulfill their desire and role as hunter-gatherers. At some point, they are also in the position where they have to plan a big all-male event: as best man, for a birthday, bar mitzvah or just because they have more money than sense. Therefore it makes sense to investigate what other options there are available for men who just want to step back in time and get all Neanderthal.

Bolving
What?
Apparently an archaic tradition in Exmoor although some argue that it is a relatively new phenomenon. The red deer there are mainly silent and live separately for most of the year. This all changes when it comes to mating season- Sept- early Nov. Stags engage in roaring contests where they make deep guttural noises to attract females and intimidate other males.
Why?
Bolving evolved when hunting was de rigueur and farmers used to mimic the deers’ wails in order to lure and snuff them out. This deceptive behaviour is not really the done thing anymore but the men of Exmoor grew so attached to this practice, they gave it a name, bolving and turned it into a sport all of its own.
When?
The 5th annual bolving competition took place in Dulverton on the 18th October and was well received- raising £1,800 for charity. The competition was judged on sound quality, pitch and the deers’ response. After the event, participants and spectators all pile back to The Rock Inn for the prize-giving ceremony. Due to press coverage the previous year, there was a mass influx of supporters. It could certainly be an interesting location to consider if you are trying to organize a stag do for next year. It will be young bucks a-plently.
Contact: email: mal@webmagik.co.uk or post: The Organisers, Bolving Competition 2009, The Rock House Inn, 1 Jury Road, Dulverton, West Somerset, TA22 9DU

Clay Pigeon Shooting
What?
This one is fairly well known. This is a mocked up version of using a shotgun to kill birds. There are different variations but essentially you will stand in a particular place and clay disks will be released at different points into the sky and you will shoot at them. When you hit stuff, you will rack up points and be able to compete with your comrades.
Why?
Bird Shooting was made illegal in 1921 so this little game has become increasingly popular ever since. You can get the thrill of the hit or kill without feeling guilty when you see tweety-pie.
When?
Whenever you want! Since no living things are involved, you are not at the mercy of their seasonal whims. Laser Pigeon Shooting is now available indoors so you don’t even have to brave the cold outdoors. This could also be good if you want to bring some youngsters with you.
Contact: Direct email to Olly Searl claypigeonshoot@tiscali.co.uk

Drag Hunting
What?
A group of dogs chase a scent that has been laid over the course. Prior to the start of the race, scent (aniseed oil and possibly animal meats) is dragged by a volunteer several miles to wherever the finish line is. The hound first crossing the finish line wins the race. A variation on this is that the hounds are followed by riders on horseback and the hunt ends when the dogs catch up with the scent-layer.
Why?
Fox hunting was banned in 2005 so this is the closest you can get I’m afraid. It’s a fun way to get involved with the spirit of the hunt without injuring or killing innocent animals.
When?
The North East Cheshire Drag Hunt’s season runs from September to March with a drag hunt every Saturday. It costs roughly £40 to participate in an event lasting 3-4 hours.
Contact: Pam Gregory, for more information on 07887 687067 / 01782 511684.

Cyber Hunting
What?
Fairly straightforward- buy or download a package that allows you recreate the hunting environment of your choice. You could even decorate your front-room to create a ambient wilderness. Too much bother? Yeah…
Why?
If none of the above rock your world then you may want to indulge in some hunting simulation. You and you bonding chums can disappear into a simple world of the past and experience the intense competition without even having to venture outside. There are tons of options available to you.
When?
Now! Check out some of these websites to get the ball rolling:
• sports.espn.go.com: A selection of hunting games that can be downloaded for free from their website. Try Deer Hunting, It’s Time to Hunt Turkey, Bear Hunting and the Outdoors Shootout. Unlike some hunting games, these titles show realistic looking graphics, giving you a richer experience.
• terragame.com: This website is filled with downloadable video games including hunting, board games, puzzle, simulation, sports, racing, gambling and strategy games. You can either purchase or try out the demos to see what they are like.
• bubbletoonia.com: Offers free online point and click games including Big Bird Hunting. By using a bow and arrow, try to shoot down birds as they fly across your screen.

A Sporting Chance (written for men's section)

The Christmas period is, without doubt, prime time to indulge in some gratuitous film watching action. When you have consumed your body weight in turkey, drank sherry, port and snowballs with your nan and even tried weird things that you would never normally eat like dates and gentleman’s relish (bleurgh and you’re not even hungry), what else is there to do apart from have a sugar crash in front of the television?
What do we really want to watch? Sport. We can’t actually get away with that because the female contingent in the living room will start moaning. What’s the solution? Well it’s kind of a compromise really: a film about sport. Everyone wins- it’s what Christmas is all about, kind of.
So what is a sports film? Simple- a film with athletes or events at the centre of the narrative. Unfortunately, what makes a great sports film is far more complicated. There have been countless polls heralding the best sporting films of all time and they tend to conflict with one another because it is very difficult to judge this genre objectively. It is not possible to apply logic; a legendary sports flick does not necessarily owe its success to directorial panache, flawless editing, a faultless script or even a talented cast. Films that tend to remain in the cinematic canon have a somewhat enigmatic quality-they get under our skin. We are boy again, heart pounding, on the pitch and it is death or glory. Or something like that.
Despite there being no winning formula to base my recommendations on, there are some elements common to victorious sporting films for you to watch out for. Use them as a benchmark, if you will:
• The underdog triumphs- he was mercilessly bullied throughout the film. Rather than crawl away into a den of despair, this spurs him on. He rises out of the ashes and we all applaud his newfound courage and strength.
• The inspirational but generally grouchy mentor- he is reluctant, steeped in recent failure, some would say washed up. His cynicism makes it difficult to initially see the sheer genius that is right in front of him. His slow realization gives him a new lease of life and a heartwarming second chance.
• The last minute turn-around- Failure is imminent; there is nothing that can be done to salvage victory. But wait, time out, coach has a crazy idea. It’s left field but what’s to lose? This final decision turns the game around and hands the trophy back to its rightful owners
• Beauty and the beast- she’s the one that everyone wants but somehow she has managed to escape becoming a complete bitch. Unfortunately her taste in men is questionable to begin with but, over the course of the film, she has epiphany and sees beyond shallow looks, realizing that sheer sporting genius is what floats her boat. She therefore shacks up with the underdog, regardless of how aesthetically challenged he is.
• A Hero who has some kind of cross to bear- he has a talent, no-one can deny that, but it has come at a price. It could be financial or academic but a favourite is family tragedy that he is too embarrassed to share.

The polls tend to classify films by genre or specific sport. It is interesting to note that films based on our national sport seem to fail to cut the mustard. If they feature at all, they are very low down the list. There could be two reasons for this: none of them seem to create an inspirational figure and they can get too caught up in cliché. If you must watch a film about football then you could go retro with Escape to Victory, thuggish with Green Street or sentimental with There’s only one Jimmy Grimble.
If critical acclaim is more your thing, the first movie to win Best Picture Academy Award was Rocky in 1976. Other films to gain this title are: Chariots of Fire (1981) Million Dollar Baby (2004), Robert DeNiro also won best Actor for Raging Bull in 1980. All these films will suit the purpose of entertaining you and pulling at everyone else’s heartstrings.
The last option I will give you is sheer comedy value. Films such as Blades of Glory, Baseketball and Dodgeball aren’t necessarily about the true gritty integrity of sport but they will make you laugh. Other films have actually managed to do the sport they explore justice whilst tickling our funny-bone at the same time. Happy Gilmore, Tin Cup, Bull Durham and King Pin all seem to have this magic quality.
So go on, sit back, reach for the Quality Street and let someone else break a sweat.

I could not help myself

"I...I...I could not help myself!" Please imagine your worst, trite, prejudiced, stereotyped vision of a southern, gun-toten', in-bred red-neck. Take a moment and savour it.
This was my first run in, that I can remember, with this assertion. I was watching Jerry Springer with my family (I did not have any control over the remote in those days) and we were engrossed in the car crash scenario of sub-humanity that was Mr Springer's dish du jour. The utterer was trying to explain why he had cheated on his wife with at least four members of their family, most probably ranging from domestic pets to 70 year old grandmamas-the facts slip my mind.
My father and my uncle found his words hilarious and it became a motif within family discourse for several months after that. It was used to excuse anything from random occurrences to downright unjustifiable behaviour.
"Why did you finish the last of the milk and not consider it necessary to buy anymore?"
"Why did you think it would be a good idea to simultaneously pass wind while scratching your balls in polite company?"
Eventually this refrain was designated to the graveyard of family sayings, overtaken by new and clearly even more amusing cliches.
I was reminded of this phrase when I was reading Nineteen Eighty-Four. The protagonist, Winston, looks back at his childhood self and tries to make sense of stealing chocolate from his dying sister's hands. Adult eyes return to judge supposedly innocent actions. "I could not help myself" did not ease his guilt but it did strike me how entirely overused these simplistically convenient words are.
What do they actually mean? Linguistically there are two problematic aspects to this statement. Firstly, the negative twist on the modal verb suggests a certainty that I am not comfortable with. It implies an inevitability within the situation; the speaker is claiming that there is no other course of action. Whoever gave it to us, we do have freewill. We are never bound to one course of action, regardless of how much we salivate over the possibility of blaming a predestined fate for our woes.
Secondly this help that is spoken of is fidgetingly ambiguous. Why can't we help ourselves? When we try to apply this anti-logic to situations, isn't it actually the case that we have done just that? Helped ourselves to our own desires, selfishly given in to our baser qualities that we try not to admit to during the 99% of our lives when we attempt to maintain a superficial veneer of being an acceptable human being.
Therefore when these words stumble into the public domain, are we actually arguing that we care too little about ourselves or others to have considered a more difficult or arduous course of action? Did we just shut our eyes, take a gulp and think, fuck it, I'll sort out the flack when I need to?
Given the inadequacy of this justification for behaviour that is clearly not corpus mentus, why does it still remain one of the most overused explanations? Sorry if I've burst some bubbles. I could not help myself.

Tied up in knots

I was set to go to the gym on Wednesday, really I was. I had been reluctant initially, dragging my heels by washing up and emptying bins. Menial tasks suddenly seemed strangely inviting in the face of extreme physical exertion. When I work-out, I work-out - no half measures for me. But I felt tired and drained. The day's exertions had greedily gobbled up my energy reserves and I was left feeling uninspired.
Nevertheless I soldiered on. I put on my gym gear (which consisted of natty leggings and boyfriend's Bobby Moore t-shirt- don't really do gym couture) and told myself that I would get right into it as soon as I started to break a sweat. Yadda yadda yadda...
You may feel that I am being deliberately perisphatic. If I was, then it would certainly mirror my procrastinating gym avoidance techniques. However, I am not employing a clever literary device. I am merely trying to accentuate an environment entirely inconducive to emotional epiphany.
I couldn't have been further from my usual state of being the paradoxically self obsessed social observer, ready and willing to pounce upon humanity's idiosyncrasies and exploit them.
I was finally ready in that I could find absolutely nothing else to do apart from go. I reached for my handbag. In it was my one salvation- my Ipod. Hopefully Caleb's special kind of fire would ignite a far more mundane one in me. I pulled the headphones to my ears. I noticed they were knotted. This is not surprising. I am notoriously careless with electrical appliances. The simple rule is that if you put them away properly then they will be ready for use next time. As a chided myself for my slapdash ways, I started to think about how this small inconvenience actually spoke volumes. If I finished conversations, projects, ideas, conflicts, days, relationships, nights (the list could go on) properly then, when I was ready to reassess the situation, it would be understandably easier. If I leave loose knotty, fractured ends of misunderstanding then, when I return to the issue, it is fair to say that nothing will have improved. At the very least, it will be as bad as it was when I left it.
I tried to tackle the problem. I pulled at the knots. This way and that, trying to work out how to free my headphones. I became frantic, grabbing one end and the other at the same time. I could see I was making more knots and contributing to the problem but I could not stop myself.
It got to the point where I felt sick at the futility of it all. I wanted to chuck my iPod at the wall and abandon any plans of moving at all; resolving to stew on the sofa in my own inadequacy.
I started to think that this is often how I approach problems. I launch myself straight in, burrow deeply, expect solutions and people to buckle if I pressure and manipulate them enough. My fervour usually ends up having the opposite effect. My desperation to solve the problem could possibly end up being the problem.
I did not chuck my iPod at the wall. Instead, I took a deep breath and looked at it in an attempt to gain clarity. After a moment, I took one headphone and saw how it was crossed over another wire. I fed it through. I could then see that if I fed it through again, it loosened the first knot. I continued this slow process and eventually the knots began to dissipate.
It made me think, when approaching an issue, I often don't take time to really see it. It is not easy but I think that I need to take one thing at a time and slowly try to make sense of it in relation to everything else. When I come out the other side hopefully things will be clearer. We'll see.

Frontgardens

You can tell a deceptive amount about a household from their frontgarden. This may sound like an obvious statement to make but its complexity struck me on a routine walk to the station.
I am very nosey, perhaps I verge on voyeuristic at points. As I walked along, I looked into garden after garden and started to make my (not nearly as superficial as you may think) judgements about the inhabitants beyond.
Firstly I want to make the distinction between intention and interpretation. Certain elements are strategically placed in a frontgarden for a specific purpose. The owners have tried to craft their initial welcome to the world, encouraging people to make certain, obviously favourable, decisions about them.
Spy the exotic flower arrangements, lovingly tended and watered. Yes, they exhibit beauty but they also make me wonder why someone would go to so much time and expense to create an oasis that serves no purpose other than to provide the proverbial passerby (me in this case) with something nice to look at. Frontgardens lack the privacy that back gardens willingly provide. You can enjoy your back yard. We do not live in Tennessee so, however attractive the idea of sitting on your porch glugging back copious amounts of bourbon all day is to you, it will never be a reality. Admit it, you would look pretty weird rolling out the sun lounger on your front porch and settling down for a satisfying spot of people watching. Although the JD may cure you of your inhibitions in a relatively short while.
So are these horticultural marvels an altruistic act whereby benevolent philanthropists bestow additional beauty to the world? No, thought not.
My theory goes right back to Elizabethan psychology which was probably informed and shaped by the good old Garden of Eden as so many things are. They used the garden as a metaphor for general wellbeing. Everything being rosy in the garden maybe a cliché but it has hidden depths. If our gardens are ordered and pleasant to look at, then we truly believe that people will assume that we actually know how to behave like sane human beings. They might even want to be our friends.
It's not just aesthetic pressures that we succumb to these days with our garden/facade: the ecofriendly culture grows with every breath. We have to have clear evidence on our front gardens that we toe the line re recycling. Whilst we want everyone to know that we are looking after our carbon footprint, this practice also illustrates how front gardens can start to communicate information about us that we would rather keep to ourselves. This is even better for my sticky beak- I get to see what papers/wine people consume. This definitely gives me a sound basis for character judgement if ever there was one.
What other nasties can the front of your house reveal? Unexplained packages on the doorstep? Moss in the crooks of your paving slabs? A defunct washing machine? Perhaps all of the above have symbolic value.
I have always had an obsession about net curtains. How can you not have them? As I walk down to the station, I can see people having dinner, watching television, picking their nose...How intrusive! It is the car crash mentality, or perhaps for me the moth going towards the light. I don't want to look but I just can't help myself. Why do people let so much of themselves be readily viewed by the outside world? I would feel as though I was on some sick, omnipresent version of Big Brother. If you don't have any form of blinds at present then invest, please, save me from myself.
Now you have finished reading, go and do what you have been thinking about for the last couple of paragraphs: have an objective perusal of your own front garden. What does it say about you? I've just looked- there is a dead frog on mine. Oh dear.

Health Feature for London Lite-Mon 1st Sept (They edited it slightly to make me sound as wacko as Jacko)

King of Pop meets King of Bop
As a child of the ‘80s, I salute the man who made crotch grabbing socially acceptable for the under tens. Although, in recent years, the previous accomplishment has soured somewhat, it is impossible to deny Michael Jackson's contribution to music over the last 5 decades.
He moonwalked into the world 50 years ago and his music may not have healed the world but it certainly has made it a better place. He has chosen to celebrate his half century by releasing a new collection of his best work: The King of Pop. The public voted for their all time favourite hits across the world and each country has released a unique album of 17 tracks.
How should one personally commemorate such an occasion? By attending Anthony King's dance class at Pineapple Studios in Covent Garden of course. If you are wondering who he is then you are not in the know. Anthony King is a celebrity choreographer who specialises in Jacko; he has also written a book and released a DVD- Anthony King’s Thriller Dance Workout. He has been touted in the media as ‘the next big thing’. My hopes were high; would my cellulite take a leaf out of Michael's book and beat it?
I got to the venue early to chew the aforementioned fat with Anthony before the class began. I learnt that there is a reason for his interest in MJ: His stepbrother worked for Jackson, so while we were all practising the infamous “HeeHee” manoeuvre in our bedrooms, he was watching it for real. It was clear from our initial handshake that Anthony King has the passion. He is dynamic, enthusiastic and charismatic. His favourite MJ song is Wanna be Startin’ Somethin’ and he certainly seems capable of this.
Pineapple Dance Studios fitted perfectly with the required 80s ambience. It is a rabbit warren of studios brim full with people with sinewy limbs and lots of energy. One thing to be prepared for though is the heat. It is a hot bed of creatvity and perspiration!

Warm up
We had a good turn out for a Wednesday night and you immediately felt included. Anthony made a point of talking to everyone and addressing them personally once the class got under way. We warmed up with some intense jogging on the spot. Watching my thighs jiggle in the mirror was not a high point but it got the blood flowing. Ironically enough, the overall routine was based to Beat It but Anthony said that every class is different so, if you go regularly, you will be treated to an array of hits.
Session
We carefully and slowly built up an intricate routine over the hour. Anthony took time to explain each section, modelling what he meant and then giving us the opportunity to practice before we attempted to put it to the music.This was all well and good for those with some semblance of rhythm, but I had distinct difficulties with my motor skills as the moves became progressively complex. This wasn't a problem though; Anthony gave everyone encouraging feedback. Even though I was much less coordinated than most, I still felt pretty damn good as we frenetically moved to the infectious beats. However inept you are, it is impossible not to enjoy yourself. Anthony is not afraid to be the man in the mirror either, he is an exceptionally talented dancer who is mesmerizing to watch. By the end of the class, I was sweaty and exhilarated. I had even kind of mastered the routine in my own special way.
Benefits
Anthony believes that dance allows you to gain a physical and psychological high very quickly. In his high-energy class, he is not wrong! Dance movements are multi directional and therefore good for your joints. The weight bearing and varied moves can improve bone density. Dancing is also good for balance and agility. The process releases toxins and alleviates stress. Regular participation can reduce your heart rate, lower blood pressure and improve cholesterol levels. You can't really argue with all of that, can you?
Verdict
If you are after a fun way to improve your fitness and love all things MJ then this class is perfect. It is not pretentious or intimidating; no-one wants to take anything too seriously apart from the music.
So did I fulfil my need to celebrate Jackson's 50th? Definitely. Was I any good? Hmm… When asked on his thoughts regarding the white gloved one, Bob Geldof said: "When Michael Jackson sings, it's with the voice of angels, and when his feet move you can see God dancing." I would like to say that I exhibited some vaguely similar qualities but if I did, I would be telling atrocious porky pies.


Michael Jackson Style Dance Class- Pineapple Dance Studios, Mon/Wed 6-7, Sat 3-4.

For more information on Anthony King- www.anthony-king.com

Articles from Bexley News Work Experience

Residents fire-off Olympic criticism

04 September 2008

HOPEFUL: Gordon Lee is optimistic that the 2012 shooting events will be moved.

CAMPAIGNERS have welcomed a government decision to review the location of three Olympic sites.

Olympics Minister Tessa Jowell ordered an investigation last Thursday into the cost effectiveness and impact of three proposed venues for London 2012.

The equestrian, shooting and basketball venues in Greenwich, Woolwich and East London will be analysed by accountancy firm KPMG after communities expressed concern about the damage and expense of certain sites.

Residents have slammed the proposal to use the 185-acre royal park in Greenwich for horse riding events fearing damage to trees. And the decision to host shooting events at The Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich rather than Dartford has also come under fire.

Michael Goldman, of pressure group NOGOE (NO to Greenwich Olympic Equestrian Events), claims that their concerns have been overlooked by the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games (LOCOG).

He said: "The case for the opposition is not mere nimbyism, there are real, practical objections involved that LOCOG has been very slow to react to. The cross country jumping event will cause permanent damage to the park."

Gordon Lee, manager of Dartford Clay Shooting Club, fears millions of pounds will be wasted on a temporary site at Woolwich when facilities are already in place at Dartford.

He said: "I can guarantee that the plans for Dartford would have cost at least £7 million less. The indoor shooting ranges would have been used after 2012 by the community for other indoor games like netball. The site would even have been large enough international fixtures like World Cup qualifiers."

Announcing the plans, Ms Jowell said: "When you take the costs of these venues, it seems like a lot of money to a lot of people. It's sort of testing-to-destruction to see whether that spending can be justified."

But she said that scrapping the plans for the proposed venues is "possible but unlikely".

The equestrian events for London 2012 could run into tens of millions of pounds after this year's venue in Beijing cost £52 million to build with a further £15 to £20 million to stage the events.

The building plans at Woolwich could cost up to £25 million and the structure will be taken down eight days after the event.

Despite widespread opposition in his constituency, Nick Raynsford MP is reluctant to openly criticise the use of Greenwich Park. In a letter to a national newspaper in June, he wrote: "Staging the Olympic and Paralympic equestrian events in Greenwich Park does not mean 'the destruction of a 300-year-old avenue of ancient oaks' let alone 'the loss of wonderful views over the city'." For more information on NOGOE and Greenwich Park, log on to www.nogoe12.com. For Woolwich Barracks, log on to http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/OlympicShooting/.

‘Unhappy’ residents paint a depressing picture of towns

04 September 2008
A SURVEY has revealed bleak findings - that we are some of the most depressed individuals in the country, writes Liz McMahon.

Research published by the British Household Panel Survey claims Bexley, Dartford and Gravesham, Bromley and Greenwich are among the saddest towns in the UK.

When asked a series of questions including 'Do you think of yourself as a worthless person?', many answered yes.

Bromley came in at a dismal 215, a double blow for the town after being voted London's ugliest borough in a recent poll reported in the Times.

Bexley fared best, coming in at 132, but there was sorry news for Greenwich, which came in the bottom 60 at 225 out of a total 282.

David Sleep, Chairman of the Eltham Society, was alarmed to discover Greenwich's gloomy result.

He said: "I don't know who these people asked but they should have come to me! Greenwich has so much history to offer.

"It is the centre on naval history and the British Empire. It is the gateway to other continents. People sometimes forget its significance.

"It has more open spaces than any other borough in London and an amazingly diverse community.

"It has high standards of public services and transport that will only improve with new Olympic developments."

Dartford and Gravesham hit the middle of the league at number 150.

Experts are divided on what makes people the happiest, citing solutions to a more positive outlook as a good sex life or watching television.

But scientists believe that the longer you stay in a place the happier you get. So hang in there.

Contaminated vodka could cause blindness

28 August 2008
HUNDREDS of bottles of poisoned vodka that could cause blindness have been seized by police.

Counterfeit bottles of Imperial Vodka bearing the SPAR brand name have been found to have excessive levels of methanol in them which, if consumed in large quantities, can cause blindness.

The Food Standards Agency issued a warning after 180 of the bottles were found in a Newcastle flat on August 5 and 70 were reported to be distributed elsewhere, 28 of them in London.

Now Bexley council is urging residents to be vigilant.

A Bexley Council spokesman said: "Excessive levels of methanol have been found in the counterfeit bottles, which would pose a potential health risk if consumed."

Bogus bottles have the smell of acetone, similar to nail varnish and have the code QI:1445c near the base and a smudged inkjet code reading: 102234 04/08/02.

So far, no bottles of the poisoned vodka have been found in SPAR stores.

A spokesman for SPAR said: "SPAR can confirm it has taken the appropriate steps to inform authorities at both the FSA and Trading Standards, and the counterfeit vodka has not affected legitimate supply routes to stores."

Customers should only buy SPAR labelled products from their stores and to be suspicious if they see them sold elsewhere.

This is not the first case of harmful vodka being illegally sold this year.

In February, Glen's Vodka was taken off the market in Hertfordshire and in April, HK Wines of London Road, Thornton Heath was fined £500 for selling bottles of fake vodka.

Anyone with information about the sale of counterfeit SPAR Imperial Vodka should contact the Food Safety Team on 020 8308 7634 or email food.safety@bexley.gov.uk.

Silver Service

Life is changing for me. I am giving up a well paid job to chase the dream. All well and good in drunken conversations, but in the cold light of day, the mortgage has to be paid. Therefore, for the first time since I was 22, I have had to consider part time possibilities.
This may sound straightforward but there are actually a confusing plethora of fields to choose from. Since I am loosely considered a professional, I felt under pressure to make a decision that woulld validate my supposed self worth. Everyone has bleated about the wealth of cash there is to be made from tutoring (yawn). Whilst I shan't dismiss this received wisdom, in the absence of imminent exams, no-one wants to pay to subject their children to unnecessary learning opportunities.
I needed something that would bring in the readies and not chip away too brutally at my soul. I chose to apply for a vacancy at Chapter One: A well respected restaurant just outside of Bromley. I was promptly contacted and asked to come in for a "working" interview. In my haste, I accepted without really entertaining the prospect of working for free for two and a half hours.
Upon arriving, I was in awe. In a way it is quite lovely to be out of depth in decadence. I wanted the job.
Why did I gravitate towards the catering industry? I had indulged the idea that I was relatively experienced. I have, after all, worked at Longfield Fish Bar for seven years in my hey day.
I was not prepared for the intracacies of posh dining. There are so many obstacles. When an order is taken, it is protocol to stand in a specific place and number the clientele accordingly. From that point on, their desires are fulfilled without the need to bother them with such inconsequential matters like their order. I had to grapple with silver serving bread rolls; I was useless. I may as well have been using chopsticks for all the skill and panache I exhibited. After chasing an elusive granary square around the dish for an uncomfortable 49 seconds, I came clean about my lack of experience and appealed for the customer to grab it themselves. Polished.
Celebrity guest, Judith Chalmers was almost treated to a jug of ice water being poured over her as I tripped up on my own sense of inadequacy. I did learn certain truths about myself in this relatively short space of time. They basically amount to the fact that I am not a good waitress, at all. Will I get the job? Watch this space....

The Neo-Nothing Conundrum

I am worried. This is not surprising considering the amount of problems there are to dwell on at the moment. Yes- the issues disrupt my sleep, there is no doubt about that, but it is my lack of consistency that perturbs me more.
I may be operating under a false illusion, or perhaps I haven been naiively convinced by the nostalgic twaddle of older generations. However, if one believes what they are told, people used to know what they were. They had a clear set of beliefs, a regimented class system, societal infrastructure... Whether they lamented or embraced their circumstances, for better or worse, people were able to build a sustainable identity.
Please don't misunderstand me: I don't particularly want to revisit the past. Some would argue that we are doing a capable job of reitnroducing old problems in new contexts anyway. Xenophobia is omnipresent as are greed and inequality. Nevertheless, health issues and youth culture have adapted with growing trends. We cannot journey back into the past to find answers that are not there, even though some politicians would beg to differ.
What I want for myself is to look towards government and find something I can buy into. I want to connect with a party and an ideology and thus allow it to influence and shape my perception of society. Presently, I am in the vast abyss of political limbo: A schizophrenic, oscillating wildly across the political spectrum.
This week, I was reading Bromley News Shopper's Voices Against Violence. Although I advocate the intention behind the campaign, its survey results left me cold. My liberal side veered up in alarm when I read that 43% of those questioned want to reintroduce capital punishment. Futhermore the comment: 'Send them out to Iraq if they want to fight so much.' made me angry as these assertions merely provide a ridiculous anti-solution- kill them or ship them off to die somewhere else. These proposals only highlight part of the problem. Like choosing to rip the plaster off quickly rather than bear the gradual pulling of the flesh, in a culture where the public can consume 24 hours a day, instant results are wanted. Couple this with the extreme reluctance to accept responsibility for why things are the way they are and, unsurprisingly, the problem escalates.
One may assume I am a lefty liberal. Wonderful- hand me The Guardian , make me a fair trade coffee and then stop bothering me so I can tend to my organic vegetable patch. If only it were that simple.
Even I surprised myself during a recent conversation with a colleague. His wife is a primary teacher who is currently covering other teachers while they take part in a family education programme. I was interested so he explained. It is where parents come in and learn with their children; they become part of the process, suppporting the school and their own education. Sounds brilliant. He sighed, it would be good if the parents that needed the help turned up. The families who were part of the programme had a positive attitude about the school and their role anyway. The parents who would have benefitted were conspicuous by their absence. The problem lies with how to target specific families. This is when I found myself saying: 'Take their benefits away from them and I'm sure they would suddenly be more willing to attend.' What is my name? Jeremy Clarkson? I couldn't believe that I had uttered such a right wing view. Where had that been hiding? If I am a Tory then I have to support David Cameron.
Therefore you can appreciate my predicament. I have the angel/devil on my shoulder syndrome. I want to get off the fence and get in bed with someone or something. Please let me become inspired enough to maintain an opinion! Am I representative of all 20 somethings? I wonder if the Neo-Nothing Conundrum is an isolated problem, specific to me, or actually the reason why so many young people find it difficult to identify with government.

Hancock Phooey

Up until last night, Will Smith has had a positive influence on my life. I was brought up on a diet of The Fresh Prince of Bel Air; one of my first dates, with sweaty palms and lemon bon bons, was to see Men in Black and I have never missed to opportunity to throw some shapes, celebrating all things sunny, with Jazzy Jeff and his aforementioned partner in crime.
Therefore, I was aghast when I learned last week that Will Smith is 39. I couldn't believe that my peter pan prince is now middle aged. This is traumatic information. Nevertheless, it becomes less important in light of the bemused disappointment I felt as I stepped out of the cinema yesterday evening.
Hancock- the basic plot is fairly well known; I am not reviewing a fresh film in any sense. From the trailer and the opening, we know where we are: we accept the subversion of genre. Hancock is a reluctant superhero- gone are the days when these uberhumans embraced their duty, casting their own well-being aside for the altruistic prevention of imminent apocalyse. Hancock drinks whisky in abundance; doesn't wash and will sexually assault women if it doesn't involve too much effort.
He flounders with the concept of post millenium Armeggedon. He isn't a very thoughtful champion of the people (and they let him know as much). He frequently turfs up roads and likes bashing into buildings all at a heavy cost to the honest taxpayer. Quite frankly, his world saving antics cause far too much mess and LA have had it up to here. They call for his arrest and, at this convenient point, he happens to save the life of a benevolent philanthropist PR exec, Ray. Yes I was dubious about the existence of such a person but it gets better (well actually worse really).
Ray takes Hancock home and decides that he will be his new project. His son loves this rugged, smelly potential uncle figure but his wife is not keen. Actually she is ridiculously not keen, so much so that I wanted an explanation for her seemingly irrational hatred. I got it, but it came at a price...
Anyway, the high point of the film comes around one third in and involves several cathartic acts such as Hancock serving some retributive justice to an archetypal bully: a long haired, French boy with a girl's name. Also, under the advice of Ray, he incarcerates himself to gain the respect of the community again. He achieves Winstonesque daddy status quickly. At this point I sat back and thought, yes I am enjoying the anal humour here; but where will it go for the next 40 minutes or so?
Oh lordy, there are few films that I have seen that get so crap so quickly. The downward spiral involves an unconvincing villain and a farcical twist. Peter Berg was responsible for Friday Nights Light and I cannot comprehend how a director who is capable of clear virtuosity could churn out such dross. That said, the answer may lie with the £93 million worth of tickets it has sold.
I was shocked by how awful the ending was: it will haunt me. That said, I really don't want to stop getting nostalgically jiggy with Will- I can only hope he became prematurely excited after reading the first half of the script and ejaculated his signature all over the contract. Had he persisted, he may have thought better of it.

Mum

Your perfume wafts
Into every fragment of my life.
I see you in the size of
My hands, the depth
Of my eyes.

I trace our history out
On your back in the bath-
Chicken lasagna Tuesdays,
Creatively accounted phone bills
And the tickling monster.

You have never been too
Busy to help me edit my life.
You gave yourself
To me; a page to splatter
With ink, as I tried to

Make sense of myself.
Floundering as a
Nouveau adult,
You took me to buy a bed
To lay my troubles on.

Now I am a woman,
Apparently. I am still
Scared as I stare
Into the abyss, turning
History into mystery.

I can take the
Next step, nothing
Is impossible.
I know you will always
Heave ho with me.

Lineage

I have been conducting a secret experiment this week, cunning I know. It stems from my (and the rest if civilization's) quest for why the world is the way it is. Nature v. Nuture- the conundrum that plagues society's infrastructure. Are we made or are we born? This question is asked in millions of contexts as I write and you read. Whenever an event occurs that shakes our faith in humanity and our predisposition towards evil, we focus on the individuals involved and rationalise why they behaved the way they did.
An exercise in futility? It can be if you are looking for an answer you have already decided upon. When pursuing this problem, we err on the side of nurture. We prefer to come to the comfy conviction that people behave the way they do because of what has been done to them. Evil has become an infectious disease that is passed on or, more pertinently, caught. The idea that it is just simply there, with no purpose or motivation, ready to pounce, is something we ironically push under the proverbial carpet.
As any good investigator who is having issues with tackling a case, I decided to narrow the field, reduce the variables if you will. I cannot answer the wide-ranging enigma; therefore, a focus on a more simplistic, tangible elementmay prove more fruitful.
Lineage, a.k.a the pecking order- my hypothesis was that your position in the family has an influence over how you turn out. My research interested me because I come over all David Attenboroughish when observing siblings. I am an only child and have grown up watching the interaction of brothers and sisters with a mixture of both jealousy and horror. I learnt very quickly that whatever friends said about their siblings, however damning they were, it was never acceptable for me to attempt to be complicit in their character assassination. I initially found this level of hypocrisy hard to stomach but I now see it as part of the warped loyalty ethos surrounding siblinghood.
How far is your personality shaped by whether you are eldest, middle or youngest? It cannot be denied that it will have some bearing on your entire upbringing. In true documentary style, let us examine the current stereotypes that exist within our society and decide if we can endorse such vast generalisations.
If you are first past the post in your own house, would that not mean that you are naturally expected to be so in all walks of life? Friends who are the eldest seem to naturally accept responsibility rather than shirking it off at any given opportunity. Typically, the eldest is seen as a surrogate pat/matriarch for the family, a deputy parent. They are allowed to have the first taste of the apple but they are also expected to test the bath water to check it is cool enough for their siblings to plunge into.
Middle children are apparently very likely to have an uncomfortable chip on their shoulder; a burning need to be recognised in their own right. To be defined/labelled in some other way than the one in-between: the pretty, clever, funny one. Their need for attention can have a negative effect as well. Their "cry for help" can manifest itself in many different ways. Another common trait is for them is to evolve as the contrary antithesis of their elder sibling. Rather than exploring what they would naturally like to do, they purposely gravitate towards fields that have not been explored or, even better, have been unsuccessful.
The youngest- the baby. There is a tendency to view this sibling as the eternal Peter Pan. Families indulge them and consequently they dwell uncomfortably in studentville until their late 20s and beyond. Why? Because when the rest of the family allow the youngest to grow up, they have to admit their own stage of development (or lack of it).
Finally my own case, the einzelkind. This breed shares flaws from all of the above: innately selfish, unable to see anyone's opinions, needs, desires apart from their own; they are insufferably spoilt and mollycoddled with no understanding of what constitutes real life and "hard graft". It is believed that they expect everyone to rally round them and naturally assume that all and sundry are interested in their current circumstances but have no inclination to exhibit even a staged mild enthusiasm for anyone else's news.
These were my case studies as I embarked on surveying friends, families and acquaintances. Like any scientist, I was hoping that I would hold these prototypes up and my subjects would all comfortably fit into my pre-established perception and thus prove my hypothesis. What I found out was more complex.
Structurally, an experiment must end with a conclusion and I am loathe to deviate from accepted practice. My findings prove my hypothesis, but only in a lateral manner. When I spoke to individuals, they were very quick to agree that their position within the family was an important factor. I became the recipient of many tales of woe and longstanding resentment. I listened to accounts of entrenched, bitter struggles and prejudices that many of the divulgers felt powerless against. Ultimately, I decided this: whether you are the youngest, middle or eldest child, it affects your life as much as you allow it to. If you accept the label, then you will inevitably perpetuate it. In turn, if you allow your family to heap the stereotype upon you, then eventually you will become that person.
To arrive back at n v n, we feel comfortable with labels that we share with others. If we can find outside justification for our eccentricties and failures then we can casually shuffle away from accepting direct responsibility for our actions. It allows us to empathise with others and form some kind of affiliation. We would much rather blame our inadequacies on the the past, on something we had no control over, than on a clear decision we independently made in the present.
Out of interest and to consolidate my experiment, I looked up the lineage of Hitler, Madonna and Ghandi. I'll let you work out why I felt them to be relevant to my research. I was surprised to discover that none of them were the eldest or indeed the youngest child. Hitler was 4/6, but only his younger sister survived childhood; Madonna is 3/7 and Ghandi was 3/4. There purposely isn't a conclusion to draw from this information. That is because, for better or worse, neither Hitler, Madonna or Ghandi are/were defined by the position they held within their family. They were, and still are, defined by themselves.

Is the pen really mightier than the sword?

Last week, President Mugabe asserted his attitude to the elections scheduled for the 27th June- 'We are not going to give up our country because of a mere X. How can a ballpoint fight with a gun?' Given Tsvangirai's decision today, he certainly seems to have a point.
Mugabe is 84 years old he has controlled Zimbabwe for 28 years. I do not know many men or women past the age of 80 who particularly scare me,(apart from Hugh Heffner perhaps)but I am absolutely terrified of what this man stands for. The question that seems to reverberate across the Western World is how and why has the situation been allowed to escalate in such a manner? Why has nothing been done to challenge the continuous corruption and bloodshed?
From the early Matabeleland massacres to the constant election violence Zimbabwe has borne witness to since the MDC first stood in 1999, Mugabe has always chosen fear over respect as his tool of control. Now it has got to the point where a party that gained 48% of the popular vote (compared to his 43%) cannot stand against him. This is for several sad and sorry reasons: even if it were safe for the public to vote freely, the MDC cannot even campaign due to excessive roadblocks and and police intimidation. To label recent events in Zimbabwe a farce implies a mildness in tone that I do not want anyone to infer.
The civilsed world often looks back at the "lessons" that the 20th century have supposedly taught us and the "never again" ethos is banded about whimsically. Do we fail to see that genocide and a culture of fear are not political concepts that we have managed to distance ourselves from? They seem to be ubitquitous aspects of human nature and they will remain so unless countries change their attitudes and move beyond old ties, affliliations or prejudices that no longer exist.
With the absence of a viable contender, it is more than likely that Mugabe will announce his victory for another term. This may suggest that there is nothing that can be done to stop more years of the same. However, this could be the point when Mugabe is at his most vulnerable, whether he would like to admit it or not. With inflation hitting 1.6 million % and a critically severe food shortage, he is not in a position to stand alone; he needs allies more than ever if his regime is to economically survive.
There are really three paths that could be drawn for Zimbabwe. One has a fairly large roadblock in front of it, for good reasons. A National Unity Government would not work- if The MDC are not even allowed to campaign, then how can they hope to have their voice heard in government? Addtionally, Mugabe's ego would never allow it primarily because he doesn't believe he has to. Civil war is a possibility but this option assumes that the public have the resources or energy to facilitate yet more bloodshed. All they want is peace, or perhaps more urgently to survive. That leaves international intervention: the only real(final) solution.
Until now, African Leaders' attitude towards Mugabe have been far more equivocal in comparison to the outrage voiced by the West. Some would argue that they have been loathe to ostracise him as they still nostalgically view him as a fellow veteran of the anti-colonial uprising. This perception may be beginning to alter, in no small part due to them having to cope with the ever increasing multitude of refugees from Zimbabwe that are starting to drain their already sparse resources and amenities. Cynically, certain critics have argued that African nations are reluctant to turn their backs on him because he knows too much about their own indiscretions. Do we need to have a human rights amnesty? That reminds me, to get Mugabe between a rock and a hard place, China needs to follow suit.
Armed insurgence is not the answer though. The UN need to provide financial and diplomatic support to a credible opposition. Strict economic sanctions need to be applied by all countries. The international community need to refuse to recognise him in both a fiscal and domestic sense.
Mugabe is not formidable; he is an 84 year old bully who has had his day.

The Age of Deferral

On any given day, how much time do we actually spend in the present? How many hours are spent fawning over past predicaments and procrastinating over future failures? Even when our bodies and minds seem to be reacting to the present, I think it is interesting to consider whether our behaviour is really influenced by something else entirely.
I was watching Tiger Woods playing in(and winning) the U.S. Golf Championship on Monday and the reaction raised from a ball going in a hole was quite extraordinary. I appreciate that, for him, this was a moment to be lived in. I also know that there will be many who will shake their heads at me- I clearly do not understand. Nevertheless, my actual argument is this- as those people jumped in the air, throwing a punch of exaltation, what were they actually celebrating?
Expanding on a sporting context, we as a nation are not even in Euro 2008, yet it seems as though it is human nature to cling to whatever tenuous associations we have to a country adept enough to actually qualify and live our footballing dreams through their experience (obviously if they are knocked out, the intricate ties are strangely and abruptly severed). The psychology behind supporting a team or a player so intensely strikes me as odd. Do not misunderstand me, I'm not focusing on those who like a bet, support local talent and so on. I am really trying to get under the skin of the loony in the pub, bashing his head repeatedly against the jukebox when HIS team loses (again) on penalities.
Why do people feel the need to live their lives through the success and failure of others? Well this is where my theory comes into play. We are living in an Age of Deferral. Rather than tackle the real issues at hand, (maybe some people are so dull or apathetic that they actually have none) people would rather transfer their redundant emotions to outside elements. It is much easier to feel happy or sad about someone else's life than one's own. It also conveniently removes responsibility which, if we're honest, no one really likes.
I am aware that that many loyal sports fans will disagree with my opening assertions. Therefore, please bear in mind that these observations are merely the catalyst for further development. Take the current generation's obssession with reality television. Big Brother series infinite- every week the Great British public like to play god and control the lives of individuals, so desperate for attention, they are even willing to temporarily defer their entire lives. We villify certain contestants and praise others for doing nothing special; we waste hours and hours watching and debating their behaviour. Why are we so bothered? Because all the time we are making ethical decisions about their inconsequential lives, we do not have to think about our own.
Whilst binge drinking is an issue that may not seem to have an obvious link to my argument, I'm afraid there is a commonality. The government have launched a new, hard hitting campaign based at 18-24 year olds in a desperate attempt to stop this "culture". Where did it come from? Why do young adults want to get wasted? I believe that it is another aspect of deferral. When inebriated, there is a distinct lack of control and therefore, again, no need to confront responsibility and live in the conscious present. It seems that, like ignorance and apathy going hand in hand, so deferral has an undeniable alliance with escapism. Whilst I do accept that my points on BB and binge drinking may focus primarily on young adults, it is only possible to learn what has been taught. I am as guilty as the next person. The Age of Deferral is not a post milllenium phenomena; I fear it extends back much further than that.

Father's Day

Due to funds running dry with the career change, I am now shamelessly exploiting my talent (?) as a gift giving facility. To add insult to injury, I am also posting it up for all to see. Sorry Dad, hope it's worth it.

Not Darth Vadar

It takes more than
Luke, I am your father
To claim to be man
enough to be known as Dad.

A seed can be sown,
But it still needs to be nurtured
Even when it has grown.

Eye level with your jeans' buckle,
Giant.
Omnisicence was a given,
Until you moonwalked muddy tough love
Throughout my teens-
Conciliatory fish and chips
Meets a homicidal teaspoon
In my head.

The wealth of Life's rich tapestry
That you are sewn
So intricately into
Cannot be undone.

Your title can't be
bought, borrowed or stolen-
It can only be harvested slowly;
I love you Dad.

Freedom of the Press?

A criticism from Chris Moyles started me thinking today. He was lamenting the fact that journalist, Mark Jeffries from the Mirror had effectively paraphrased his "exclusive" interview with Sharon Osbourne that had aired yesterday morning. I had also listened to this (after hating Moyles for sometime, his strange allure of arrogance and ego has won me over)and as the team went through soundbites of Jeffries' story, it certainly did seem as though he had lifted her words and created his article around Chris' scoop.
The roly poly(ha) DJ's bugbear was the fact that The Mirror had neglected to credit Radio 1 at all within the article whereas other papers had run the story but made sure that they mentioned his impromptu interview. Comedy Dave also drew attention to the hypocrisy surrounding the incident: when they have debated a story and neglected to include their source, newspapers have been known to get quite irrate.
I can certainly see their point but if we expand this argument, I think the eventual conundrum becomes obvious: who owns news? I am approaching this query from an entriely ideological perspective rather than considering it from a legal point of view. Once you share news, do you cease to have sole ownership of it? Once in the public form, is it essentially a free for all?
How many times have you had a particuarly witty anecdote told to you, pocketed it and recycled it at an opportune moment? Everyone is "guilty" of this crime and if you are not then you either need to listen more carefully to your friends or find some new ones with something interesting to say. When you seize your limelight, I imagine that in order to do the news justice, you probably doctor it a little, personalise it so that your audience laugh indulgently in a "that is so typical you!" manner. Through editing the information, it's also possible to convince ourselves that plagiarism hasn't occurred, the humorous acquaintance has merely inspired creativity.
So we all do it in a microcosmic sense but let's return to the big picture. News eventually turns into history. Interesting to decide when this transition happens- is it a day after, as we chuck the papers away? Or do we have to wait 50 years to really judge an event outside of its own context? My point here is that if we accept that whoever discovers the news first has ownership and needs to be referenced, does their copywright have a sell by date? Ideally, I imagine that a capable historian always investigates the primary source and then makes their own intepretation. Perhaps that what Jeffries should have done.

Review of the week

It has been emotional to say the least. That stands for personal and public experiences. For your sanity, let's focus on what has caught my eye outside of Lizworld. The bitter battle for the Democrat nomination has finally drawn to a close (although Clinton didn't seem to realise until well after everyone else). The result was going to be groundbreaking whatever the conclusion but a black presidential candidate will certainly bring a few potential Wallaces out of hiding no doubt. It will be interesting and sad to see how certain Republicans choose to villify him. Does he stand a chance against McCain? Internationally one may assume so. However, this was the mistake many made in 2004. We take for granted that our views are shared across the pond because we naively or arrogantly believe that they are right.
I went to New York in Feb and being the quintessential nosey parker that I am, I took every opportunity to quiz the US public about their political persuasions. Not that it was particularly difficult, because they are more than more forthcoming with their pearls of wisdom. It seems that politics and religion fit nicely into polite conversation in a bizarre way. But basically, to cut to the chase, the general prognosis at that point was that it didn't really matter who won the democratic nomination, a black guy or a woman were never going to make it onto the White House. Therefore McCain will win but will it be Republican status quo? I hope not.
This leads me to thinking about minorities. I can remember leaving school and believing that prejudice and (ridiculous as it seems) ignorance didn't exist. That is why it so difficult to hear the fact that educated professionals still believe that it is possible to be cured of homosexuality. The mind boggles. I appreciate that at points everyone could do with the number of a good psychiatrist, but your sexuality is your sexuality is your sexuality. No-one can pre-destine or manipulate that and in the wonderful cosmopolitan world that we live in, why would we want them to?
Negative views like this make me feel fairly disaffected, as if I needed an excuse! But I leave you with some personal pathos. A colleague's 16 year old daughter died this week. She was born with a hole in her heart and was also severely autistic. She has intricately planned her funeral with sunny colours and uplifting songs. To have that strength of character leaves me in awe and for her mother, to bury your own child will always be something that messes with my general state of being.
Where are the positives!!!?? I give you them as I've seem them- a rerun of Karate Kid. I cannot begin to describe the tingle I feel when Ralph does the dying lotus (or whatever it is) on the evil kid. That is pure catharcism for the bullied amongst us. I also welled up at my cousin's 18th birthday. I was surprised as I try to maintain an austere veneer at family dos (sometimes small talkbeats real talk) but to watch a young woman cry when her father spoke about her coming of age was food for the soul.
An average week them I guess, to be fair.

Counting the inches…

I taught a Larkin poem last week and it got me thinking…

As Bad as a Mile
Watching the shied core
Striking the basket, skidding across the floor,
Shows less and less of luck, and more and more

Of failure spreading back up the arm
Earlier and earlier, the unraised hand calm,
The apple unbitten in the palm.

Philip Larkin

I do not necessarily agree with Larkin’s sentiment. Is life futile and any attempt at developing a sense of faith and belief ultimately flawed? Hmm… Still, as I thought about human behaviour, certain aspects started to ring true.
I recalled my university degree which so utterly disappointed me. I was so desperate to gain a First but due to circumstances entirely within my control, I ended up with a 2:1. Rather than accepting this with dignified grace, I proceeded to tell everyone that would listen that I was 2% shy of a First. It is only with painful hindsight that it is obvious that when one berates life’s near misses so candidly they look like a wanker.
An analogy that strikes me is this: if a bus is missed by 30 seconds or 10 minutes, it doesn’t really matter. Ultimately the bum is not on the threadbare seat with the suspicious brown stain on it. What does this enlightened knowledge provide? An excuse to fail badly? As if one was necessary. Again, this mentality is put into practice by friends and acquaintances. I think it’s called “falling off the wagon”. What is the point of one cigarette, glass of wine or chocolate? When succumbing to temptation, do it bloody justice. We don’t seem to like half measures in our failures as much as we loathe them in our successes.
Another human trait that strikes me within this poem is the ridiculous way in which we try to control or bargain with fate and destiny. The concept that we try to decide life’s difficult decisions by making the basket/traffic light/etc in time. Everyone has their personal decision making mechanism and at points we truly believe that if we succeed in the inane target we have set, our ultimate desires will come to fruition. Why do we do this? Is it an attempt to play God in our own lives? Are we aware of how inconsequential our little battle is? Or do we manage to convince ourselves? I also like the way that we change the goal posts and allow ourselves the opportunity to cheat fate or play it at its own game. If we don’t achieve our aim (let’s use one of mine for clarity: getting the rubbish in the bin) the first time around, then we make it best of three or even five if our aim is particularly dire.
So failure and control seem to be the key concepts here. Therefore we arrive back at the question: can we truly control whether we fail? I think that perhaps failure is subjective and past failures change and evolve with time. Over five years on, I have had “closure” on the whole 2% debacle and certainly do not feel the need to engineer conversations around it. Not that my degree qualification comes up so much anymore. It seems that measuring ourselves by past achievements or failures can be the most destructive practice of all. What we should be concentrating on is eating the apple in the here and now.

Cut to the chase- what's the solution?

My mother refuses to listen or watch the news anymore. I think her uncomprising stance has something about an ostrich and sand within it but I also think that an increasing number of people are becoming entirely disaffected by what they are told about the world around them.
The issue of the day for me is teenage violence. As I listened to the fact that 16 teenagers have been stabbed to death in London in the last sixth months, I tried to think if it had always been this way. I can remember being scared when I was a teenager and feeling threatened when I was on my own. Nevertheless, I'm sure that young people stabbing or beating one another was not quite so regular an occurance.
Despite this inner (perhaps nostalgic) belief, I'm reluctant to argue that youth violence has got worse. Statistics argue that it hasn't. But if this is the case, why are we all talking about it? Something has changed; it's just a matter of working out what it is. Let's start with the weapon. Is it the knife or worse the gun that's the problem? Are guns more readily available to teenagers today? Not if you take Germaine Greer's point made Radio 4. She argued that all self respecting young men would have carried a knife in her day. I can remember my father's (albeit belated) glee at receiving a swiss army knife for Christmas when I was young. I believe they were considered to be de riguer of masculinity.
If we agree that knives are not a new invention and accessibilty hasn't increased then we need to look beyond the actual weapons. This seems to be something that is difficult even for the government to do. Perhaps this is because knives and guns are controllable, quantative entities whereas human will and intent are not. If Boris Johnson wants to rid London of the 'scourge' of knife crime, he is going to have to look further than the chosen instruments of assault.
People are quick to judge the law and its interminable weakness. To many, the government are failing and this is where the blame lies. We like to push dealing with evil away to somewhere non descript and distanced from our lives, like Whitehall. A policeman has said, 'Until teenagers are more frightened of the law than eachother our task is hopeless.' and I think this starts to shed some light on where I want to head with my argument.
Lord of the Flies- a novel so many of us read at school. I have taught it to my year 11 class this year. In the novel, Golding explores the concept of human fear and how it affects society in intricate detail. It is the fear that eats away at the boys and allows them to degenerate from "civilised" school pupils to murderous savages. Things go wrong for them when 'people start(ed) getting frightened'. They look desperately for an embodiment of evil outside of themsleves, from the water, the air or even a pig's head on a stick. Simon's assertion, 'maybe it's only us' is realised far too late by Ralph as he weeps for 'the darkness of man's heart' at the end of the text.
I think fear is a significant problem in society today. Due to advancements in technology, we can plague ourselves with new fears 24 hours a day. Parents are scared and consequently children are scared. But we do not share these fears enough in the cold light of day. Think about the kind of fear that Carol Saldinack had to contend with when she realised what her sons were capable of. No one wants to admit that potential for evil exists within their own home. This leads to hysteria and ignorance; both of which are cancerous elements in society.
Hysteria leads to hatred; ignorance leads to apathy and a lack of repsect. Are these qualities indicative of the new generation? Have they the ironic access to omnipotence through the web but also the disinclination to use it? Have they the absence of a "cause" to fight for and unite against?
Whenever anyone talks so generically it frustrates me but it is difficult to do anything otherwise. Something is changing in our culture and we need to recognise it in order to react to it. I believe it has something to do with Darwin. Again, an old theory for a new (?) problem.