I'm watching Billy Connolly on his World tour of England Ireland and Wales.

I'm watching Billy Connolly's World Tour of England Ireland and Wales.


He's in Belfast and was talking about the different districts, the murals found in each, and the conflict between the religions or factions if you prefer over hundreds of years.

It made me think of when I was working in the service station in Harthill. It was a strange place to work, as the area was also divided, but only in 'marches' season.

You see, people were good friends. They talked together, ate together, shared breaks and stories, and helped each other out. All year round people would be best of friends. but in marching season, the old animosities arose, and for those two weeks, people stopped talking, wouldn't help each other and acted like love rivals. Or worse.

Once the season was over, the ill-feeling would gradually fade away, and by the end of the summer when I was returning to university, people would be friends again.

Isn't it sad that people's beliefs can come between friends? Especially when one of the basic tenets of those beliefs is 'do unto others''.

Call out the Instigators

Something I loved about Japanese TV commercials was that they usually showed who was singing the song somewhere on screen at some point. Which was great (if you could read it)

At long last I've found out who the singer of the TalkTalk advert is! Even better, you can find her here on myspace. From the first time I saw the ad I wanted to know who sang it.

I think that there's a similarity between her singing style and Alicia's Attic, but hey, I could be wrong.

Anyway, think I've kept you in suspense long enough, Hayley Sanderson

Check her out.



PS. I can't seem to upload any images. Hopefully it'll work tomorrow.

Aerial Reptilians

My initial thoughts ran like this:

So they had edited the new film starring Samuel L Jackson to a PG rating, and it was to be called Pacific Flight 101. After post-editing advice they went back and reshot some of the film, gorier deaths, more violence and so on. They also decided to return to the original catchy title, Snakes on a Plane .

Maybe it's me, but this just doesn't inspire fear, or a desire to watch it. It just sounds cheesy. Remember, or think of, the wonderfully (woefully) titled B movies of the 1950's and 60's. Well this is a candidate.

Tonight, it even got a mention on the news.

Apparently the hype has been growing, and fans have managed to influence the script, by getting it made scarier.

You Tube has a bunch of home made videos made on the subject.

So it must just be me that thinks the name doesn't inspire, well, anything. One of the first titles the writer thought of, long before he got the opportunity to make the movie, or even pitch it was "Venom". But

It's a simple name, and following the structure you can make many tantalising movies.

naked girls on a plane. Yup, I'd go and see that.
snakes on a plain - could be an interesting documentary

Actually, I could be wrong there.

So I've thought about this a lot. I need to get out more, perhaps, but maybe it's a linguistic thing.

You see snakes don't really inspire terror, although they do create fear. "A plane" doesn't build any connection. At some point I realised that this sounds like a Japanese movie title. Japanese titles should be in English - because it's cooler, but many Japanese have a great difficulty in distinguishing between 'the' and 'a'. (There are no equivalents in Japanese)

Is it me, or is "Snakes on the plane" a better title?

Apologies, if you're trying to translate this into Japanese.

Oh, and when the news team asked someone that had seen the movei what they thought of it, they said it was a good film, in the vein of a 1950s B movie. Perhaps I have missed the point

Philanthropy revisited

I've gone back to this article I mentioned in my first blog, and have removed a single paragraph upon which to focus.

"It's hard to rubbish the idea of philanthropy, as giving $37bn away to help fight HIV/Aids and global injustice is unquestionably a good thing. But that should not stop one from having a go. Instead of concentrating on where the money is going, it might be more useful to think about where it came from. Acquiring that much money requires a single-minded devotion to capitalism. Which means that Buffet's gain has - at times - inevitably been someone else's loss; he has made his money by exploiting others for profit."

'It might be more useful to think about where it came from', he says. 'Buffet's gain has - at times - inevitably been someone else's loss.' Perhaps. Indeed in a competitive environment, where one wins, another loses, but who really amasses vast sums of money simply through making other people lose? Casinos certainly work on this premise, but all business? If I 'win' by ensuring that my customers 'lose', will they return? And ultimately, will I win, or lose?

Crace also manages to make the jump from 'at times inevitably someone's loss', to 'he made his money by exploiting others for profit'. These are somewhat different statements. Undoubtedly, there are people that make their money through exploiting others. Con men and hustlers. And indeed some 'businessmen' are con men or hustlers, or both. But are all of them?

Buffet made his money on the stock market. Not through running sweatshops or tricking old ladies out of their pensions. He even agrees that our society pays disproportionately well for being able to do what he does well. Just as it pays disproportionately well if you are able to kick a football or sing well. Beyond that he believes that since he has been paid disproportionately well for this, that society has a claim on this wealth. This view of Buffet is rather different than the one Crace has portrayed. The key is that Buffet feels society deserves access to this, 'his', wealth.

Crace says 'giving to charity is something between me and my conscience' yet, from what I have read about Buffet, he feels somewhat the same. Unlike Crace he is both able and willing to make massive donations. Not just massive in terms of the sum, but also sums that make up a huge proportion of his wealth. Could you give away 10% of your net worth? half? How about three-quarters? Now maybe, like me you simply need more than half of your worth to cover the cost of living. But if you have savings, could you give away 10%? You could, but would you actually do it?

"No one is going to give me a pat on the back for giving $37 to Sport Relief and nor would I expect it... Buffet... hands over the cash and gets pages of copy in the world's press." Indeed he did, he did something remarkable and made the news. Did he go out and ask to be splashed over the newspapers? I can't answer this, but I suspect, neither can Crace"

'Philanthropists always seem to want a quid pro quo'. Again, I would add that you always hear about the people that you hear about. You never hear about people making massive anonymous donations, for quite self explanatory reasons.

As a final thought, let's say you're in the position to give away $50,000. Would you be making a 'better', more 'genuine' and altruistic act of kindness to slip the cash through the door of a charity in an unmarked envelope, or to go in and tell them what you want to do?

The answer will always be 'go in and tell them'. A good fundraiser will be able to turn your $50,000 into $83,333. Or more, depending on just how good they are at their job, and your situation. That extra $33,000 is surely a more altruistic act.

And of course, you could always ask the charity not to tell anyone, but who knows what your act might inspire in others.

How cool is your music?

Q Magazine has recently published a list of 'guilty pleasures'. Songs which are uncool, but we are actually allowed to listen to. In doing so they've inadvertantly come across one of my biggest bugbears.

You see music is popular because it's cool, not because it's actually good. This explains the popularity of Franz Ferdinand. It also expains the sudden boom in soundalikes of Franz Ferdinand. Let's be honest, apart from some highly simplistic pop tunes, there's no actual talent or ability there. There are a vast number of bands with far more talent, better lyrics, better ability in playing instruments. Just generally better all round.

The real key to music is to like it for the music. The sound of it, and how it makes you feel. Forget about who is actually singing it.

Of course, it's not easy to do this. In Japan, I was lucky enough to have this chance. I kept hearing a beautiful song being sung by a girl with a strong but musical voice. I fell in love with it, and had to find out who it was. Imagine my shock in discovering it was Christina Aguilera. I mean, come on!

This was the point at which I realised we base our decision on whether to like a song or not on whether we like the band. And worse, we we base our decision on whether to like a band or not on whether we like the band's image. Which is why image sells bands. As do preconceptions. Bands I didn't think I would like because of their name, and the preconceptions I had formed. I didn't think I'd like Tricky, but I love Evolution Revolution Love, another one I first heard in a bar called Apres in Kanazawa.

Without knowing who they are, Manassas is not a name that made me think I'd like their songs, but Johnny's Garden is a beautiful song. Bound to fall and Move Around are great too.

Faith No More's Stripsearch is a fantastic song that I listen to almost every day! Metallica too.

Something I like about myspace is that you can hear the music before you get the chance to form a preconception. Check out Karen David

So do me a favour, get someone else's CD or iPod, don't look at the cover, don't look at the player, and just stick it on random, see what happens. You might find a song you love, and if it's a band you think you hate, even Franz Ferdinand, love it for what it is.