Most of last week was pretty uneventful. I have a strong suspicion that in this compressed semester, that's how much of it is going to be. Lots of reading, meetings, and papers with a little time to play. Thursday was a big day, though. I met with someone about a potential masters thesis, and she agreed to be my advisor. We still have to work out the particulars of the topic, but it will be something concerning sustainable consumption, likely with a history twist. Right now we're thinking of examining advertising over time. Needs work. Also, I switched out of my law class and into a climate change mitigation class. I thought it would be a bit boring, but it turns out to be very interesting. I suppose it's one of the "happy classes" wherein I don't come out feeling incredibly depressed about the state of the world.
Sunday saw a trip to Roundhay Park for a leisurely pub lunch and then a long walk around the park. A nice (if chilly) way to spend and afternoon. Last night I meet up with a friend to watch the Superbowl. Of course, here, the Superbowl goes from 11pm to well past 3am, so it was a bit of a long night. Also, no commercials, which was very odd. Either way, a great game, though it was a bit sad not having my DC friends around me to partake in some pigs-in-a-blanket. Side note: pigs-in-a-blanket in England are sausages wrapped in bacon; a lovely idea to be sure, but lacking in the amazingness of cocktail sausages cloaked in golden, buttery dough.
Oh well, off for some more reading, that is if I can stay up...
Monday, February 8, 2010
Friday, January 29, 2010
First week done!
The first week of the new semester went off without a hitch (so far as I can tell). My schedule this year is pretty amazing. Mondays off, Fridays off, and every other Thursday off. All that adds up to travel and lots of on-demand internet TV. Glorious. I also found out that we have a full month off for Easter break. Which is damn generous, if you ask me. Sure, the semester is compressed. But one month off!
I handed in my dissertation concept note yesterday. I settled on something dealing with the intersection of design and sustainability, but beyond that I have about 20 ideas for how that could be carried out. At least I have a professor who's interested in discussing the topic, so I guess that's good. Classes overall are much more practical this semester. I think it will be interesting to see how they unfold. European Environmental Law is going to be my most challenging, but I think most rewarding course. I'm just not a "5 foot" thinker, I tend to be at the "50,000 foot" level, so it will be a good exercise, even if I want to kill myself by the end of it. Updates will follow...
I'm glad to be getting past January and moving on. It's such a slow month, with resolutions and whatnot. I've been better about keeping to my resolutions. So far, I've cut down on sweets and have been working out more and doing more yoga. Though, I'm not sure there's a perceptible difference, yet. We shall see. Maybe I'll become really ripped and start up my modeling career as an underwear model. Ha.
I have to say, it's pretty difficult trying to watch things over here that happen in America with the time difference and all. I was able to catch the iPad announcement, but the State of the Union came on too late for me to stay up and watch the whole thing, so I saw clips and read about it the next day. Probably more efficient anyway. From what I could tell, it seemed to be a fine speech. Though, it was nice that he was more-or-less like, I screwed up, you screwed up, but lets not throw out the baby with the bath water. Everyone seems to be yammering about how they can't see the point of the iPad, but I think the problem is that most of the people talking are computer savvy. They can't understand why someone would want a device that can only surf the net, get e-mail, read e-books, look at photos, and play music. But, I tend to think there are a lot of people for whom that's really their only functional need. By stripping out all the other things that can go wrong (viruses, spyware, etc.) it may be the perfect solution for a lot of people who only have basic computing needs. Time will tell, though.
Last night I went out to a Moroccan buffet with a few friends, then on to the pub for a pint an some snooker. I suck at snooker, I might add. Tonight brings a birthday party with coursemates, which should be a blast. I'm pretty excited. Yes, and I'll post pictures from York soon.
I handed in my dissertation concept note yesterday. I settled on something dealing with the intersection of design and sustainability, but beyond that I have about 20 ideas for how that could be carried out. At least I have a professor who's interested in discussing the topic, so I guess that's good. Classes overall are much more practical this semester. I think it will be interesting to see how they unfold. European Environmental Law is going to be my most challenging, but I think most rewarding course. I'm just not a "5 foot" thinker, I tend to be at the "50,000 foot" level, so it will be a good exercise, even if I want to kill myself by the end of it. Updates will follow...
I'm glad to be getting past January and moving on. It's such a slow month, with resolutions and whatnot. I've been better about keeping to my resolutions. So far, I've cut down on sweets and have been working out more and doing more yoga. Though, I'm not sure there's a perceptible difference, yet. We shall see. Maybe I'll become really ripped and start up my modeling career as an underwear model. Ha.
I have to say, it's pretty difficult trying to watch things over here that happen in America with the time difference and all. I was able to catch the iPad announcement, but the State of the Union came on too late for me to stay up and watch the whole thing, so I saw clips and read about it the next day. Probably more efficient anyway. From what I could tell, it seemed to be a fine speech. Though, it was nice that he was more-or-less like, I screwed up, you screwed up, but lets not throw out the baby with the bath water. Everyone seems to be yammering about how they can't see the point of the iPad, but I think the problem is that most of the people talking are computer savvy. They can't understand why someone would want a device that can only surf the net, get e-mail, read e-books, look at photos, and play music. But, I tend to think there are a lot of people for whom that's really their only functional need. By stripping out all the other things that can go wrong (viruses, spyware, etc.) it may be the perfect solution for a lot of people who only have basic computing needs. Time will tell, though.
Last night I went out to a Moroccan buffet with a few friends, then on to the pub for a pint an some snooker. I suck at snooker, I might add. Tonight brings a birthday party with coursemates, which should be a blast. I'm pretty excited. Yes, and I'll post pictures from York soon.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
York was lovely; now onto the controversy.
First of all, York was quite nice. I did take a few pictures (mostly of buildings), and as soon as I can run them through iPhoto, I'll post them up here. But, I have something more personal that I feel like I need to discuss. No, I'm not pregnant. Though, that would be AWESOME. Imagine tiny Stephens running around. Plus all the press coverage.
Since I've started the blog I've, naturally, moderated some content. Some to protect what little dignity remains (though clearly, that has been shredded by pictures on Facebook). And some because, well, I knew it would piss people off. But, I've decided that I need to discuss this topic because it's important to me, and because it is part of my experience here (I know, I know, get on with it). The wall is coming down--I'm posting about politics. Specifically generational politics and the politics of anger. For those of you not interested, close your browser now. For others, read on. But, know that I write this with the greatest trepidation, and for those of you whom I offend, I apologize. There, apologia done.
*****
I've loved the game of politics from an early age, as my parents will surely inform you. Growing up, around the dinner table we had lively debates on all manner of things, from abortion rights to international policy. This parlayed into one-half of my undergraduate degree in the form of a BA in Political Science (the other half was History). With regards to political philosophy, it's a mix between a libertarian ideal, conservative pragmatism, and a liberal view of personal rights.
I have watched the health care debate from both sides of the Atlantic now, and frankly, it's frustrating. Much of what I see are reductionist politics playing into American anger over the state of the economy. We are so stuck in a state of paralysis by the current debate that we fail to be able to step back and understand the complexity real issues at hand. Healthcare is a series of interlocking components that feed into one another. The fact that there are so many uninsured continues to drive up the cost of healthcare daily. Issues like mental illness (e.g. depression) which plague more than a quarter of the population and often play into a feedback loop of physical illness (e.g. obesity) are rarely treated properly due to stigmas and chronic underfunding of treatment, further driving up costs. The system is so overly fragmented between the insurance company paying the hospital, the doctor, and the pharmacist, that rarely does anyone know the true price of any component much less the proper billing code. We have failed ourselves by refusing to take responsibility of the actions that we can control. How many people could significantly reduce their health problems if they were to lose weight and stop eating unhealthy food (again, demonstrating the complexities of poor agricultural priorities)? How much asthma could we prevent in young children if we were to fix emissions standards and reduce air particulates? A free market system ultimately fails in healthcare because it's nearly impossible to put a price on health since it is an immensely personal issue that is extraordinarily difficult to remove from emotion. Just try it. Ask 10 people how much they think a life is worth. And tell them they can't say "priceless." Yes, a market economy should theoretically work this all out, but the problem is the price you might put on your neighbor's health is likely very different than that of your child's. Does it make sense to spend thousands of dollars per-year to extend the life of a 75-year-old man for just one more year? Economics would say no. But, ask me how much I would have been willing to pay to extend the life of my grandparents and the number is incalculable.
It is due to this inherent complexity that I support universal, single-payer healthcare--with a caveat. I truly believe that universal healthcare will help remove complexity in the system on a basic, interface level. But the caveat is this: the universal system should not be an all-you-can eat plan. In my mind, it should provide a base level of care that would be necessary to maintain adequate health for a normal person. But, it should allow for supplementary care above-and-beyond what the base plan offers. Everyone should have access to truly affordable healthcare. No patient should have to die because they couldn't afford basic medical attention and generic drugs. But, patients should also be allowed to purchase supplemental policies that cover chiropractic work, plastic surgery, and gastric lap-band procedures.
Looking at the current social programs in place, this is surprisingly the model that we often use. Social security provides a base level of income for many workers, but should you want to supplement that income, you can invest in an IRA or a 401(k). (Clearly there are issues with the benefit structure due to miscalculated life-expectancies, but let us assume that the fundamental model works). The same actually goes for another little social program: Medicare. You are provided a base level of Medicare for a relatively low fee; however, should you wish to purchase Medigap insurance or additional prescription drug coverage, you are afforded the opportunity to do so. And you know what? Medicare has been successful by many accounts in holding down costs (and by some marks has less waste than traditional insurance providers). Do I think this will solve every problem? Far from it. But, it's a start.
I honestly don't find this potential system that radical, given our current policies, but I can guarantee you that if it were proposed, people would throw a fit about the expansion of government and more government waste. It's not infrequent that I am asked about my positions on healthcare and/or the U.S. government generally. I think in many ways, people can't understand a system in which you wouldn't provide basic care for all citizens. Honestly, I can't either. It's difficult to explain the divide in U.S. politics between liberals and conservatives because I don't necessarily think there always is one. I truly believe the difference is between those who are willing to accept that many of the problems we face are immensely complex and exist at the intersection of emotion, economics, and personal history, and those who would rather reduce problems to slogans and newspeak because they would rather not have to think about it.
The issues of reductionist politics occur on all facets of every issue. Democrats are just as guilty as Republicans in this. People would rather not think about the complexities because in doing so, they have to give recognition to the "other side." It's easier to get angry at your enemy than to understand where they're coming from. We have gotten into a mode that says that because 1/100th of the counterargument is false, suddenly the entire position is false. That's like saying because you get one foul in basketball, you lose the game. These issues are fluid networks of problems and solutions that flex and sway in the winds of academic and social debate. We have entered into a phase wherein we are unwilling to educate ourselves through experts and would rather be told a 30-second sound clip by a blow-dried desk jockey. This is inane. There are multiple angles to be told. I recognize that my position on healthcare has a counterargument. And I am willing to have that debate. But not with someone who is only willing to call me a socialist and reduce my position to a word they saw on a poster.
But I do have hope. I look at the current generations in power and it seems that much of their socio-poltical beliefs are rooted in a distrust of authority and a post-modernist mindset. Boomers and Gen-X were the first generations to feel the effects of divorce on a personal level, through themselves and their parents, respectively. Social institutions that had once been the norm slowly broke apart. Naturally, this engendered a mistrust of authority figures. After all, how could you believe anyone when your spouse, to whom you had promised a life of love, decided that they didn't feel the same. How can you trust an authority figure after you see part of your world destroyed in a parent's divorce. This is not to condemn divorce, as I think people often grow apart. But the difference is that we have social mechanisms through television and mores that help people deal with divorce now. It is no less shocking, but it is now a common experience, which reduces its impact to the collective psyche of the nation. Both generations saw immense socio-political change as presidents (Nixon and Clinton) were publicly discredited. How easy is it to trust authorities, experts, and anyone when the status-quo is evaporating on the front pages?
Similarly, the Boomers grew up at a time when post-modernism was coming into our national consciousness. No longer was there an ultimate purity of truth to be attained, to put it simply, if your worldview was your reality, why would you need to consider others opinions? It was this shift towards post-modernism that served to reinforce this distrust of authority. I think Americans were profoundly affected by these social shifts, in far larger ways than we realize. Much of the anger we are experiencing now is misdirected. I don't really believe that people are upset at Obama. Or the health reform bill. Or taxes. I think what people are upset with is the fact that we're in situations that are complex and difficult and are going to be extremely difficult to solve and work through. And that brings up issues of insecurity and uncertainly, causing people to lash out with anger.
So the hope part. It really does exist. I think it comes through Gen-Y and Gen-Z, but through new concepts of society and interconnectedness. As trite as it may sound, growing up in a fully globalized economy with the internet available at a moment's notice has prepared these generations to accept and appreciate complex issues more than other generations. They grew up with a basic understanding that the products came from all around the world, seeing and interacting with networks on a daily basis, from satellite feeds on CNN to Wikipedia entries on Miley Cyrus. When issues of distrust of reigning authority still persist, the solution is not necessarily to get angry and hurl pathetic barbs, but instead to band together to work around the problem. These generations embrace complexity, as long as it is wrapped in a simple, easy-to-use interface. Witness the technologies created or modified by the current generations. Peer-to-peer file sharing (e.g. Napster or Bittorrent) is perhaps the epitome of network visualization, intended as a workaround to poor distribution models and over-priced content, but achieved through a simple click and download interface. The creation of social networking sites with clean and simple designs (e.g. Facebook, Twitter) as a counter to the disconnectedness of a modern lifestyle. Home-brewed apps that enhance the functionality of existing systems (e.g. the iPhone). Yes, Gen-Y and Gen-Z may demand more on-time access and total connectivity, but the ways in which they create solutions to roadbloacks is a new paradigm that serves to enhance society. The good news is that more and more, the Boomers and Gen-X are utilising this paradigm--albeit in more traditional ways--as a way to work through problems.
The current generation of politics, exemplified by the healthcare debate, is simply a symptom of larger problems in society. But by embracing complexity, and using it as a medium through which we can understand problems and develop new solutions, we have the potential to actually improve our global society. The trick is this complexity must be wrapped in a cloak of simplicity. A paradox, to be sure, but consider the fact that most people don't know and don't care how the internet works, they only care that it works when they open up their simple browser. Universal, single payer healthcare will not remove the complex financial and emotional decisions and networks that underpin a hospital, or the doctor-patient relationship, what it will do is simplify the interface so that people can focus on the things that can benefit their health, rather than worrying about the complexities of getting a bill paid. And the more complexity we remove, the more we can focus on the networks that matter--our personal relationships.
Since I've started the blog I've, naturally, moderated some content. Some to protect what little dignity remains (though clearly, that has been shredded by pictures on Facebook). And some because, well, I knew it would piss people off. But, I've decided that I need to discuss this topic because it's important to me, and because it is part of my experience here (I know, I know, get on with it). The wall is coming down--I'm posting about politics. Specifically generational politics and the politics of anger. For those of you not interested, close your browser now. For others, read on. But, know that I write this with the greatest trepidation, and for those of you whom I offend, I apologize. There, apologia done.
*****
I've loved the game of politics from an early age, as my parents will surely inform you. Growing up, around the dinner table we had lively debates on all manner of things, from abortion rights to international policy. This parlayed into one-half of my undergraduate degree in the form of a BA in Political Science (the other half was History). With regards to political philosophy, it's a mix between a libertarian ideal, conservative pragmatism, and a liberal view of personal rights.
I have watched the health care debate from both sides of the Atlantic now, and frankly, it's frustrating. Much of what I see are reductionist politics playing into American anger over the state of the economy. We are so stuck in a state of paralysis by the current debate that we fail to be able to step back and understand the complexity real issues at hand. Healthcare is a series of interlocking components that feed into one another. The fact that there are so many uninsured continues to drive up the cost of healthcare daily. Issues like mental illness (e.g. depression) which plague more than a quarter of the population and often play into a feedback loop of physical illness (e.g. obesity) are rarely treated properly due to stigmas and chronic underfunding of treatment, further driving up costs. The system is so overly fragmented between the insurance company paying the hospital, the doctor, and the pharmacist, that rarely does anyone know the true price of any component much less the proper billing code. We have failed ourselves by refusing to take responsibility of the actions that we can control. How many people could significantly reduce their health problems if they were to lose weight and stop eating unhealthy food (again, demonstrating the complexities of poor agricultural priorities)? How much asthma could we prevent in young children if we were to fix emissions standards and reduce air particulates? A free market system ultimately fails in healthcare because it's nearly impossible to put a price on health since it is an immensely personal issue that is extraordinarily difficult to remove from emotion. Just try it. Ask 10 people how much they think a life is worth. And tell them they can't say "priceless." Yes, a market economy should theoretically work this all out, but the problem is the price you might put on your neighbor's health is likely very different than that of your child's. Does it make sense to spend thousands of dollars per-year to extend the life of a 75-year-old man for just one more year? Economics would say no. But, ask me how much I would have been willing to pay to extend the life of my grandparents and the number is incalculable.
It is due to this inherent complexity that I support universal, single-payer healthcare--with a caveat. I truly believe that universal healthcare will help remove complexity in the system on a basic, interface level. But the caveat is this: the universal system should not be an all-you-can eat plan. In my mind, it should provide a base level of care that would be necessary to maintain adequate health for a normal person. But, it should allow for supplementary care above-and-beyond what the base plan offers. Everyone should have access to truly affordable healthcare. No patient should have to die because they couldn't afford basic medical attention and generic drugs. But, patients should also be allowed to purchase supplemental policies that cover chiropractic work, plastic surgery, and gastric lap-band procedures.
Looking at the current social programs in place, this is surprisingly the model that we often use. Social security provides a base level of income for many workers, but should you want to supplement that income, you can invest in an IRA or a 401(k). (Clearly there are issues with the benefit structure due to miscalculated life-expectancies, but let us assume that the fundamental model works). The same actually goes for another little social program: Medicare. You are provided a base level of Medicare for a relatively low fee; however, should you wish to purchase Medigap insurance or additional prescription drug coverage, you are afforded the opportunity to do so. And you know what? Medicare has been successful by many accounts in holding down costs (and by some marks has less waste than traditional insurance providers). Do I think this will solve every problem? Far from it. But, it's a start.
I honestly don't find this potential system that radical, given our current policies, but I can guarantee you that if it were proposed, people would throw a fit about the expansion of government and more government waste. It's not infrequent that I am asked about my positions on healthcare and/or the U.S. government generally. I think in many ways, people can't understand a system in which you wouldn't provide basic care for all citizens. Honestly, I can't either. It's difficult to explain the divide in U.S. politics between liberals and conservatives because I don't necessarily think there always is one. I truly believe the difference is between those who are willing to accept that many of the problems we face are immensely complex and exist at the intersection of emotion, economics, and personal history, and those who would rather reduce problems to slogans and newspeak because they would rather not have to think about it.
The issues of reductionist politics occur on all facets of every issue. Democrats are just as guilty as Republicans in this. People would rather not think about the complexities because in doing so, they have to give recognition to the "other side." It's easier to get angry at your enemy than to understand where they're coming from. We have gotten into a mode that says that because 1/100th of the counterargument is false, suddenly the entire position is false. That's like saying because you get one foul in basketball, you lose the game. These issues are fluid networks of problems and solutions that flex and sway in the winds of academic and social debate. We have entered into a phase wherein we are unwilling to educate ourselves through experts and would rather be told a 30-second sound clip by a blow-dried desk jockey. This is inane. There are multiple angles to be told. I recognize that my position on healthcare has a counterargument. And I am willing to have that debate. But not with someone who is only willing to call me a socialist and reduce my position to a word they saw on a poster.
But I do have hope. I look at the current generations in power and it seems that much of their socio-poltical beliefs are rooted in a distrust of authority and a post-modernist mindset. Boomers and Gen-X were the first generations to feel the effects of divorce on a personal level, through themselves and their parents, respectively. Social institutions that had once been the norm slowly broke apart. Naturally, this engendered a mistrust of authority figures. After all, how could you believe anyone when your spouse, to whom you had promised a life of love, decided that they didn't feel the same. How can you trust an authority figure after you see part of your world destroyed in a parent's divorce. This is not to condemn divorce, as I think people often grow apart. But the difference is that we have social mechanisms through television and mores that help people deal with divorce now. It is no less shocking, but it is now a common experience, which reduces its impact to the collective psyche of the nation. Both generations saw immense socio-political change as presidents (Nixon and Clinton) were publicly discredited. How easy is it to trust authorities, experts, and anyone when the status-quo is evaporating on the front pages?
Similarly, the Boomers grew up at a time when post-modernism was coming into our national consciousness. No longer was there an ultimate purity of truth to be attained, to put it simply, if your worldview was your reality, why would you need to consider others opinions? It was this shift towards post-modernism that served to reinforce this distrust of authority. I think Americans were profoundly affected by these social shifts, in far larger ways than we realize. Much of the anger we are experiencing now is misdirected. I don't really believe that people are upset at Obama. Or the health reform bill. Or taxes. I think what people are upset with is the fact that we're in situations that are complex and difficult and are going to be extremely difficult to solve and work through. And that brings up issues of insecurity and uncertainly, causing people to lash out with anger.
So the hope part. It really does exist. I think it comes through Gen-Y and Gen-Z, but through new concepts of society and interconnectedness. As trite as it may sound, growing up in a fully globalized economy with the internet available at a moment's notice has prepared these generations to accept and appreciate complex issues more than other generations. They grew up with a basic understanding that the products came from all around the world, seeing and interacting with networks on a daily basis, from satellite feeds on CNN to Wikipedia entries on Miley Cyrus. When issues of distrust of reigning authority still persist, the solution is not necessarily to get angry and hurl pathetic barbs, but instead to band together to work around the problem. These generations embrace complexity, as long as it is wrapped in a simple, easy-to-use interface. Witness the technologies created or modified by the current generations. Peer-to-peer file sharing (e.g. Napster or Bittorrent) is perhaps the epitome of network visualization, intended as a workaround to poor distribution models and over-priced content, but achieved through a simple click and download interface. The creation of social networking sites with clean and simple designs (e.g. Facebook, Twitter) as a counter to the disconnectedness of a modern lifestyle. Home-brewed apps that enhance the functionality of existing systems (e.g. the iPhone). Yes, Gen-Y and Gen-Z may demand more on-time access and total connectivity, but the ways in which they create solutions to roadbloacks is a new paradigm that serves to enhance society. The good news is that more and more, the Boomers and Gen-X are utilising this paradigm--albeit in more traditional ways--as a way to work through problems.
The current generation of politics, exemplified by the healthcare debate, is simply a symptom of larger problems in society. But by embracing complexity, and using it as a medium through which we can understand problems and develop new solutions, we have the potential to actually improve our global society. The trick is this complexity must be wrapped in a cloak of simplicity. A paradox, to be sure, but consider the fact that most people don't know and don't care how the internet works, they only care that it works when they open up their simple browser. Universal, single payer healthcare will not remove the complex financial and emotional decisions and networks that underpin a hospital, or the doctor-patient relationship, what it will do is simplify the interface so that people can focus on the things that can benefit their health, rather than worrying about the complexities of getting a bill paid. And the more complexity we remove, the more we can focus on the networks that matter--our personal relationships.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Semester one: done.
As of Thursday, my first semester is officially over. After studying on and off for the past week, at 9:30 am, I walked in to the Great Hall on campus, sat down with my pen and hammered away at two of the five essay questions printed on the pale pink piece of paper in front of me. The exam was pretty much about how I expected it to be. Obviously, I don't really know how I did yet, but I don't think I completely failed it. I hope. I ended up using most of the time available, so I suppose if nothing else, I have a lot of words.
After the exam, my coursemates and I all went to the Terrace Bar for a celebratory pint (or five). What started out innocently became a mad bar-hop around the city. I'm still recovering, as is my pride. Given last nights events, it seemed like a good idea to sit out tonight and stay home catching up on 30 Rock and Modern Family.
Wednesday I saw "Bright Star" with a friend, and Monday, it was Avatar. I've got to say, while I think Avatar was incredible for the artistic direction and the action sequences. The script was--to use one of my favorite britishisms--pants. Really, I'm not sure there could have been any more holes in the plot if they had written it on mesh screening. But, the great visuals made up for it. I was definitely glad I saw it in 3D. Still a couple of movies I want to see before semester two starts up on Monday, though. Maybe Sherlock Holmes tomorrow night.
Tomorrow a few of us are taking a day trip to York. I've really wanted to see it for a while now, so I'm hoping the weather will hold out and it will be pleasant. But, I promise I'll post pictures from the excursion. If I can remember.
Oh well, time to become friends with my liver again and let it rest for a bit.
After the exam, my coursemates and I all went to the Terrace Bar for a celebratory pint (or five). What started out innocently became a mad bar-hop around the city. I'm still recovering, as is my pride. Given last nights events, it seemed like a good idea to sit out tonight and stay home catching up on 30 Rock and Modern Family.
Wednesday I saw "Bright Star" with a friend, and Monday, it was Avatar. I've got to say, while I think Avatar was incredible for the artistic direction and the action sequences. The script was--to use one of my favorite britishisms--pants. Really, I'm not sure there could have been any more holes in the plot if they had written it on mesh screening. But, the great visuals made up for it. I was definitely glad I saw it in 3D. Still a couple of movies I want to see before semester two starts up on Monday, though. Maybe Sherlock Holmes tomorrow night.
Tomorrow a few of us are taking a day trip to York. I've really wanted to see it for a while now, so I'm hoping the weather will hold out and it will be pleasant. But, I promise I'll post pictures from the excursion. If I can remember.
Oh well, time to become friends with my liver again and let it rest for a bit.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Music Monday!
Whilst "studying" for finals I came across a couple of nice new artists. OK, so I like acoustic stuff. Whatever. I'm in that kind of mood.
J. Tillman - http://myspace.com/Jtillman
I honestly can't figure out who J. Tillman sounds like, but it's someone I've heard of before. But, with a pure voice, a bit of a twang, and nice riffs, it's good background/Sunday morning music.
J. Tillman - http://myspace.com/Jtillman
I honestly can't figure out who J. Tillman sounds like, but it's someone I've heard of before. But, with a pure voice, a bit of a twang, and nice riffs, it's good background/Sunday morning music.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Close to done
Inspiration (or desperation--I can never really tell the difference) hit around 8pm on Thursday. The realisation that I had at least 1500 words left to write, and no citations kicked my mind into focus mode. Sadly, it meant missing out on a house party, but it was worth once my mind actually kicked into focus. Up until 1:30, and then back at it at 8:30am the next day, I finished my final essay around 10:30 and trotted off to school to hand it in. Damn, it felt good.
I can't say it was the most exciting paper I've ever written, but how thrilling can cost-benefit analysis, be anyway. I originally had some awesome ideas for telling the story, but it seemed that a cost-benefit analysis of prostitution probably wouldn't fly with the lecturers. Then again, maybe it would have gotten me a better grade. Oh well.
So, after catching up on Modern Family and 30 Rock, I met a friend for a pint, which ended up turning into going to the international store for a full-on middle eastern dinner, with a little TV on the side. Hummous in a can is scary stuff.
Feeling listless later on in the night, I went to Fruity at the University with a few people. First, Fruity, despite what it would sound like, is not some multi-colored gay bar with skittles vodka shots. Our student union in addition to a traditional-style pub, has a bar and three clubs. For Fruity, they open up the clubs and have a different style of music in each one. Since they're clubs, they naturally all have one-word names--Stylus, Pulse, and Mine. Side note: I'd really love to see a club with a descriptive name sometime, like Jack's Den of Debauchery or STDs Free With Every Shot. Walking in, I felt older than dirt given the overwhelming number of freshers milling about. Luckily, some guy with grey hair missing a few teeth was standing close to me at the bar, at which point I felt better about myself again. Either way, it's still weird to now go to hear 90s music as quasi-retro. 90s music as faux-ironic I get, but the fact that I can remember hearing some of the music on the radio makes the cobwebs start to creep out. Obviously, I'm 26, so it's not as if I'm headed for retirement village anytime soon, but it does put a bit of perspective on the situation. Still, I had a good time, though I don't think I'll be heading back to Fruity any time soon. It was good for a laugh.
Now, off to go gum down some food, watch a history program on BBC and fall asleep at 7pm.
I can't say it was the most exciting paper I've ever written, but how thrilling can cost-benefit analysis, be anyway. I originally had some awesome ideas for telling the story, but it seemed that a cost-benefit analysis of prostitution probably wouldn't fly with the lecturers. Then again, maybe it would have gotten me a better grade. Oh well.
So, after catching up on Modern Family and 30 Rock, I met a friend for a pint, which ended up turning into going to the international store for a full-on middle eastern dinner, with a little TV on the side. Hummous in a can is scary stuff.
Feeling listless later on in the night, I went to Fruity at the University with a few people. First, Fruity, despite what it would sound like, is not some multi-colored gay bar with skittles vodka shots. Our student union in addition to a traditional-style pub, has a bar and three clubs. For Fruity, they open up the clubs and have a different style of music in each one. Since they're clubs, they naturally all have one-word names--Stylus, Pulse, and Mine. Side note: I'd really love to see a club with a descriptive name sometime, like Jack's Den of Debauchery or STDs Free With Every Shot. Walking in, I felt older than dirt given the overwhelming number of freshers milling about. Luckily, some guy with grey hair missing a few teeth was standing close to me at the bar, at which point I felt better about myself again. Either way, it's still weird to now go to hear 90s music as quasi-retro. 90s music as faux-ironic I get, but the fact that I can remember hearing some of the music on the radio makes the cobwebs start to creep out. Obviously, I'm 26, so it's not as if I'm headed for retirement village anytime soon, but it does put a bit of perspective on the situation. Still, I had a good time, though I don't think I'll be heading back to Fruity any time soon. It was good for a laugh.
Now, off to go gum down some food, watch a history program on BBC and fall asleep at 7pm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
