Month: January 2015

In his article, Brand reflects on his interview with Jeremy Paxman, in which he is queried on his unorthodox political stance of complete abstinence from voting altogether. Brand believes the economic disparity between the rich and poor is something to be immediately addressed, however he also claims that the current political system is too flawed to warrant his attention. This suggests that this budding dissenter has very little understanding of how these two vital components of our society correlate; something that is concerning when considering how much support this man has elicited. Brand comments in the article that his interview was commended because he had “articulated what they” (presumably meaning the public who share his views) “were thinking”. This is perhaps true, but the points stated are nothing innovative, and have been articulated many times before. However, the main difference between Brand and those who have also spoken his views is the guileless manner in which he voiced his, and to an extent my own, views on the bizarre runnings of this country.

It is very easy to take up arms alongside Brand, especially when he talks of politicians such as Boris Johnson “simpering under a makeup brush” portraying a very vivid picture of the insincerity associated with politics.

As a person who is not yet allowed to vote, I am discouraged immensely as Brand gives his take on how “The only reason to vote is if the vote represents power or change. I don’t think it does.” And that “We deserve more from our democratic system than the few derisory tit-bits tossed from the carousel of the mighty when they hop a few inches left or right” the emotive language creates a feeling of being robbed of a functioning government, and more importantly one of powerlessness to change that. Brand’s emotive language is akin to that of propaganda in prose and in effect.

Brand’s article, while maintaining an aloof composure within his writing, makes very direct and serious arguments, calling democracy as a whole “irrelevant” and declaring “it is our responsibility of be more active if we want real change.” These rather contradictory statements occur in the very same paragraph. It seems that Brand encourages both passive protest of the government through abstinence and a simultaneous radical revolution. Or perhaps the more likely alternative that Brand wants an article to be agreeable to those dissatisfied with the government, of which there is a large amount, and one that will draw positive publicity to him. His opinionated oscillation makes his motives (likely intentionally) vague; acquiring a rally of support while saying very little that could condemn him in the eyes of those more conservative.

Brand also seems all too eager to place the blame solely on the politician’s shoulders, which in part is a fair verdict. It is undeniable that the governments acts have not been with the whole interest of the people they “serve” as Brand puts it, but as much as “it’s their job to be serious” it cannot be said that citizens have no responsibility for the country they live in. We’ve passively condoned their behavior for a multitude of reasons, perhaps the most difficult to come to terms with is that we are not so fervent in our dissatisfaction that it gives us cause for wanting change, let alone acting to create amendments in the near future. It seems that Brand, for a lack of a better word, preys upon this token desire for democratic amendment, but neither Brand nor his sympathisers have reform on their agendas.

I personally cannot say that Brand is incorrect in his political assertions. In my significantly shorter time on Earth than Brand and my even more significantly shorter time paying the remotest attention to politics. I have noticed very little change extending beyond a few cursory policies or the occasional passing of a mundane law. Certainly nothing similar to the change Brand envisions, but maybe perhaps that is the aspect of Brand’s argument I find strikes a chord; it’s just too perfect. With phrases like “If we all collude and collaborate together we can design a new system that makes the current one obsolete.” Preaching behind a laptop that “There are alternatives” causes me to doubt anything like genuine change entailing from this escapade when such naive statements are used. This seems evident to me that Brand is treating this more like an advertisement than a campaign for political reform, but I suppose that is to be expected from an article in a newspaper. It is just unnerving that someone who seems to desire change enough to write about it for the world to see, does in the same keystroke trivialise it in its entirety.

‘There is nowt wrong with slang’

 The article written by Belinda Webb argues that, as put rather obtusely by the title “there is nowt wrong with slang”. With specific regards to Emma Thompson who had started a campaign against the use of sloppy slang. The writer’s protest to the campaign is based half in personal attacks and half in fallacy. Belinda Webb is glorifying colloquialisms and their detrimental effects on the current generation’s articulacy; and this is what I will be responding to in this article.

“That epitome of Hampstead luvviness, Emma Thompson, has apparently started a campaign against the use of sloppy slang and street talk”. In the very first sentence Miss Webb has made a personal attack on someone because they are trying to promote articulation and urge teenagers to express themselves with a broader vocabulary. Great going. She then goes on to say “what’s to be expected from a Cambridge graduate?” Attempting to alienate Thompson because they have been accepted and then graduated from a prestigious university; so far Webb has proved nothing but envious resentment of those who are able to express themselves intelligibly.

Miss Webb continues to state “it [slang] demonstrates an inventiveness and quickness of thought…a language on the go, evolving not just from one generation to the next but from one year to the next.” The writer’s phrase ‘language on the go’ seems an apt description, as these colloquialisms are indeed, going. Their impermanence is staggeringly obvious, however there is no progression or ‘evolution’ as is said by Ms  Webb; these words are fleeting at best, and frivolous sub-communicatives at worst.

Belinda Webb then uses Irvine Welsh’s Trainspotting to postulate that “British literature is served well by slang – it can energize prose.” This I am in agreement in with the writer; slang can indeed enrich our written and in some cases spoken language. However the over extolled slang that is borderline invasive of teenagers vocabulary is forcing out its etymological relatives for vapid and improper counterparts. Slang is an addition to the English language, not a replacement.

The sub title of the article is also something that particularly struck my attention, in which Belinda Webb chooses to write “Emma Thompson of all people ought to know that Shakespeare’s slang became part of our everyday language” this statement, of course, is true. However, Shakespeare was able to effectively and eloquently express himself using standard English, or in his case old English. His use of slang did not allow omittance of his vocabulary to accommodate such colloquialisms. There is also a strong tinge of hypocrisy in these words, as the writer implies that Emma Thompson “of all people” is knowledgeable of  slang and its applications throughout history. The writer states this while simultaneously arguing that no one person can judge whether colloquialisms are socially acceptable. It certainly appears that her argument holds little legitimate ground. And even less sensical.

“What Thompson et al may be put out at is feeling out of touch with the reality of this younger generation” This quote is one of her barrage of flawed sophisms that shook me the most. Not only is it another personal attack on Thompson, reducing Webb’s argument back into the realms of uneducated squabble, but it is also offensive to this “younger generation”. Webb is generalizing the entirety of the current teenage generation, but implying that colloquialisms are our “reality”. If Miss Webb is in any way fighting for the empowerment of the teenage age group, she has certainly done quite the opposite. Webb also states that “They [teenagers] may not consciously know this is what they are doing but they are seeking a language that represents their reality, and a way of creating a private space for those with whom they identify.” This quote is one I find the most encompassing of Webb’s opinions on slang; that is is something to be revered and encouraged, which in some cases is very true, and slang can be used to create literary masterpieces, but the “reality” is that this simply is not happening. Those using slang on a daily basis will quite unsurprisingly use it to talk about things they would discuss on a daily basis; it is not quite the catalyst for a language revolution that Webb depicts it as.

The writers tumultuous babble appears to wane into reason and humility toward the end, with her closing statement that of “I am not saying language is a substitute for “standard” English, but it should be recognised and capitalised for what it is – a love of communication of and inventiveness of speech…” Which is indeed agreeable, however Webb still continues to greatly romanticize slang and its modern application to language; perhaps we could encourage the youth to creatively incorporate colloquialisms into language as Shakespeare did if we gave the current generation the articulation to do so, just as Shakespeare did. Then perhaps, Miss Webb’s asinine glorification of modern slang would perhaps seem less sophistic.

Children who play videogames are more violent

 First of all; no. This is one of the most frustrating assumptions to me, largely because it makes no logical sense; would you blame a game of lazer tag for promoting war? Or wine gums for encouraging alcoholism in teens? No you wouldn’t. Because it’s ridiculous to accuse an inanimate object for the decisions of a sentient human being.

 It is, for the most part, an opinion of parents who want to protect their children from “harmful” media. But in reality they are digging themselves a larger hole; the more they try and place their kids in a cellophane bubble, the more fervent they will be in their inevitable escape. Kids are naturally curious. So what happens when you take away their access to answers? They find other ways of accessing it. The parents have in fact left their children ill prepared for the reality that will meet them when they become independent. To me, at least, this seems more like a disservice than any form of protection.

 That’s not to say that at a young age media does not have the ability to influence a child’s philosophies and values, but a parent blaming a video game for their child growing up to be a serial killer? That’s inexcusable. It seems we have forgotten who truly has the most influence of their child; the parent. If they have not brought their child up with enough intelligence to know the difference between Call of Duty and real life then they may want to consider not producing any more offspring.

 So to conclude, using video games as scapegoats for poor parenting is inexpiable. A violent child is the produce of poor morals taught by bad parental figures, not Super Mario, not Battlefield 4 and not fucking Angry Birds. Age ratings suggest our minds are like sponges, perhaps they are, but not empty ones. We are all, and I mean  all capable of deciphering the difference between a Kill-streak and a Mass murder. Maybe it’s time to give the next generation a chance to truly and freely be the next generation and not a carbon copy of the previous one.

In chapter 12 Scout and Jem are invited to Sunday Church at First Purchase, Calpernia’s regular place of worship. The strong sense of community (to the degree of borderline segregation of the Caucasian population if Maycomb) is seen in Lula, the well known trouble maker within their congregation. Scout remarks that the graveyard behind the church is more colourful and “happy cemetary” and is interested in the call and response manner that their hymns are sung in. Chapter 12 also gives insight into the social contracts of Church-going seen when Reverend Sykes shames a member of the community for not attending, and prevents the mass from leaving until enough donations were collected. Harper Lee seems to draw attention to the contrasts in the white and black communities and their attitude to worship, and forming the more genuinely and honest congregation that Scout has been introduced to.

Atticus is a very influential character in Mockingbird, Scout percieces her father as a very bland and uninspiring figure when placed in comparison with her peer’s parents. In chapter 10 however Scouts opinion of Atticus is revised when her father shoots dead the ‘mad dog’ that was found roaming around Maycomb. Jem remarks that the fluidness and ease that Atticus handles the rifle unsettling as prior to this Jem’s father claims to not enjoy or be interested in guns. Jem and scout also discover their father’s nickname of ‘One-shot’ in reference to his unnaturally accurate aim, this is also a source of tension in the chapter as this was previously unhead of from Jem and Scout’s perspective.

Chapter 9 explores the underlying sense of hubris in the Finch family. This is seen most crudely in Scout, when provoked by her cousin, Francis who called her father a “Nigger lover” in reference to Scouts father, Atticus defending a Black man accused of a crime by the Ewes family. This causes Scout to lose her composure and attack Francis, and almost immediately is caught and punished. An excess in pride is also seen in Francis, who critisizes Atticus as he himself believes (or is simply reiterating an opinion of his parents or grandparents) that Atticus is shaming the family, and his pride urges him to process this.

Even Atticus’ actions are the product of his pride preventing him from refusing to take on the case of Tom Robinson even though it was socially frowned upon by everyone in the town of Maycomb, including the judiciary committee, making the case extremely hard to win.

In his article, Brand reflects on his interview with Jeremy Paxman, in which he is queried on his unorthodox political stance of complete abstinence from voting altogether. Claiming that, contradictingly, the current system is too flawed to warrant his attention and the economic disparity between the rich and poor is something to be immediately addressed. Brand comments in the article that his interview was commended because he had “articulated what they” presumably meaning the public who share his views, “were thinking”. This is perhaps true, but the points stated are nothing innovative, and have been articulated many times before, however the main difference between Brand and those who have also spoken his views is the guileless manner in which he voiced his, and to an extent my own, views on the bizarre runnings of this country.

It is very easy to take up arms alongside Brand, especially when he talks of politicians such as Boris Johnson “simpering under a makeup brush” which portrays a very vivid picture of the insincerity associated with politics. As a person who is not yet allowed to vote, I am discouraged immensely as Brand gives his take on how “The only reason to vote is if the vote represents power or change. I don’t think it does.” And that “We deserve more from our democratic system than the few derisory tit-bits tossed from the carousel of the mighty when they hop a few inches left or right” the emotive language creates a feeling of being robbed of a functioning government, and more importantly one of powerlessness to change that; Brands emotive language is akin to that of propaganda in prose and in effect.

Brand’s article, while maintaining an aloof composure within his writing, makes very direct and serious arguments, calling democracy as a whole “irrelevant” and that “it is our responsibility of be more active if we want real change” these rather contradictory statements occur in the very same paragraph. It seems that Brand encourages both passive protest of the government through abstinence and a simultaneous, radical revolution. Or perhaps the more likely alternative, that Brand wants an article to be agreeable to those dissatisfied with the government, of which there is a large amount, and one that will draw positive publicity to him.

Brand also seems all too eager to place the blame solely on the politician’s shoulders, which in part is a fair verdict. It is undeniable that the governments acts have not been with the whole interest of the people they “serve” as Brand puts it, but as much as “it’s their job to be serious” it cannot be said that citizens have no responsibility for the country they live in; we’ve passively condoned their behaviour for a multitude of reasons, perhaps the most difficult to come to terms with is that we are not so fervent in our dissatisfaction that is gives us cause for wanting change, let alone acting to create change in the near future. It seems that Brand, for a lack of a better word preys upon this token desire for democratic amendment, but neither Brand nor his sympathisers have reform on their agendas.