Monday, 4 May 2015

Why You Should Vote UKIP on the 7th May

The Berlin Wall was an excellent idea - if the East Germans were free to leave to the West its population would have continued to dwindle, starving the state of resources and ending socialism with a prolonged whimper. This is because the only real constraint on the growth of the government is the size of its tax base – if a significant number of people emigrate its finances would be squeezed. The larger the geographical area of the government the relatively more authoritarian it will be since the costs of moving outside its jurisdiction will be higher than for a smaller country.

Imagine a scenario of modern city states. You live in Milan but the tax burden has increased and ID cards have been introduced, however the relatively more liberal Turin is under two hours drive away. You need not learn a new language, nor practically sever your ties with friends and family to live under a lighter yoke. In such a situation many would move to Turin putting strain on Milanese finances , effecting genuine pressure for a  less onerous overlord.  The smaller the state, the more similar it is to an actual business - if I don't like Byron Burger and frequent Hub Box instead, the former could eventually fold so they have to respond to consumer demand to stay afloat. Contrast this with voting within a large state - even if you voted for the winning party, which most people don't, there's no real pressure on them to follow their manifesto commitments as the money keeps rolling in: it's like signing a five year catering agreement with Heston Blumenthal to provide rib-eye steak every day and then for Heston to subcontract the deal to the Animal Liberation Front who will only make vegan sausages. All I can do in five years time is to vote for Gordon Ramsey and hope.

Now you may be thinking where does the UKIP fit in here? It's simple: the European Union. Under the European Communities Act 1973 European Law supersedes UK law: it has effectively declared itself sovereign over all the member states - it is an embryonic transnational state. The EU has a flag, an anthem, a president, a parliament and again wants an army. The project has always been primarily political, rather than economic - note the Treaty of Rome 1958, the founding treaty, goal of "ever closer union". The logic of the EU is a federal Europe: effectively a United States of Europe (USE). In such a situation you couldn't just jump on dingy to Dublin to escape the talons of Westminster, you'd need a plane to Paraguay.  As such, the USE would likely be as liberal as Uncle Joe's USSR. Therefore the primary present political goal is to leave the EU.

The only party with a chance of putting on pressure for a fair EU referendum is UKIP. Cameron is frankly a liar: when he was vying for the Tory leadership he gave a cast iron pledge to party members that as Prime Minster he would have a referendum on the Lisbon treaty; even before he became PM he reneged on his promise. All Tory PMs since 1970 have been radically pro-EU with the exception of the later Thatcher Prime Ministership at which point she was promptly stabbed in the back. If the Tories have an outright majority without any deal with UKIP, either the EU referendum won't happen or it will be so skewed as to make Saddam Hussein's Iraq elections look free and fair.

Now you may fear, and rightly, Red Ed's Labour Party and so wish to vote for the Tories as a lesser of two evils. However, the practical difference in the policies of both parties in government between 1979 and today is negligible. Vote for Red, Blue or Yellow and the ruling class wins. For instance, whoever is Home Secretary will continue to arrogate more power to the state in the name of national security: be it the Charles Clarke's Civil Contingencies Bill (aka Blair's Enabling Act) or Theresa May's Snoopers' Charter.

In the case of a Labour/ SNP coalition this does offer something genuinely different: a return to old school socialism. It would be a bleak time indeed, however it would foster such anti-Scottish sentiments that there could well be a referendum on England leaving Scotland! Not only would this reduce the jurisdiction of the state but also mortally wound the Labour Party.

Finally, if you want a genuinely less burdensome state in the long run your only option on May 7th is to vote UKIP. If you disagree on immigration, the NHS and defence it doesn't matter. The only structural limit on the power of the state is its geographical size - the SNP want to turn the area north of Hadrian's Wall into the People's Republic of Scotland; after a number of years so many would try to leave they'd either have to take inspiration from Berlin's Wall or become a half decent place to live, otherwise it would make Greece look like El Dorado.

Sunday, 7 September 2014

Diamonds are LVG's Best Friend: The Way Forward for Utd this Season

Given all the ins and outs over the summer it seems clear to me that Utd ought to ditch the 3-4-1-2 and use a 442 diamond. They are in fact quite similar formations except the central centre back operates as an anchor in midfield, which should then allow the other central midfielders to push on more providing more options further forward. The lack of creativity has worried me much more than the defence. The defence have looked a bit shaky against mediocre attacks but they've only conceded three which is less than both Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool. That said, they ought to be more confident when reverted to a back four; also a man just in front will prevent opposition players from moving between the lines.

Here's what my first choice line-up would assuming everyone is fit:




De Gea is obviously first choice. Rojo is there for physical presence plus it's always handy to have  a left footer on the left-side at centre-back. His partner is a bit trickier since its generally good to have a stopper/ ball-player combo a la Vidic and Ferdinand, so you have presence and the ability to begin swift and accurate transitions. We really only have two ball-playing centre backs in Evans, who is consistently injured and recently useless, and Blackett, whose composed on the ball with a surprisingly good passing range but is very inexperienced. I'd go for Evans based on his experience plus when he gets a good run of games I'd expect him to come good - Evans was largely the only constant in the Utd back four which broke the Premier League record for the number of consecutive minutes without conceding. I would though blood Blackett in a good number of games.

But what do we do with Jones and Smalling? I'd have Jones competing with Rojo. With a back-four I can't see any role for Smalling barring ridiculous amounts of injuries. Jones and Rojo are better as beastly CBs and Smalling's as good on the ball as Neville Southhall.

Shaw would act primarily as a more defensive left-back which plays to his strengths; if necessary Rojo can play there as could Blackett. Rafael on the other hand will own the right side of the field providing the width and  attacking options. Unfortunately the only replacement we have be him in this role is Antonio "Corner" Valencia.

Carrick would play his preferred screening role just in front of the back four linking the play in possession and closing the space without it. Blind is a possible alternative here although I'm not sure on his passing ability, both short and long. That said at the moment I'd throw Blind in and Fletcher out- he is so immobile he has less movement than like Han Solo entombed in carbonite.

Di Maria would play as a left-sided central midfielder, the same role he excelled in his final season at Madrid. Starting centrally but with licence to drift left, he's terrorise the right-back with his silky dribbling and put in pin-point crosses. Since Di Maria would likely drift leftwards in possession this means Shaw can stay relatively defensive without sacrificing width. With Rafael bombing up and down the right, Herrera can stay central, passing, moving and always providing options- something we have distinctly lacked in his absence. I've seen little of him but we created far more with him on the pitch primarily because the opposition players have to track his runs as opposed to just watching Fellaini and Fletcher. 

Mata will play in his best position, behind the strikers: it allows him full freedom to unlock the defence with penetrative through balls and chip in with some goals. Some may think Rooney is a better bet here but I'll deal with the Rooney issue below. At second-striker I actually think Januzaj is the best option. With no wingers at least one of the forwards needs to be comfortable out wide. Further he adds more pace and dribbling ability than Van Persie, Rooney or Wilson. Thus he can get in behind the defence thus stretching the play vertically. You may think that Januzaj is a winger but his temperament is always to cut inside onto his left foot- essentially it's similar to Robben's role for Holland. For the pure striker role Falcao is the obvious option. He's a pure number 9 and will dovetail brilliantly with Januzaj. He has a marginally better goal to game ratio in the past three seasons but its his predator instincts that make him the best option; Van Persie began as a quasi-winger/number 10 and likes to drop deep. In a 433 as a sole striker that extra all-round ability is incredibly effective, its just not as necessary in a front two.

Such a line-up would provide a solid defence, midfield control, sufficient width to stretch the play horizontally and penetration up front to stretch it vertically. Add to this the guile from the 10 and goals from the 9, this team should easily be able to hit top 4, probably at Liverpool's expense.

Now to the Rooney issue. Despite all the pundits claiming he is a versatile player, he actually requires the team to be built around him to achieve peak performance- he's more Riquelme than John O'Shea. As a proper striker his hampered by his lack of aerial ability and hold up play but more importantly  his natural tendency to drop deep than risk a run to the far post which can lead to playing with no striker at all especially when his service is limited- he'll become angry and run deep to make things happen; RVP's possitional sensibility is similar which is primarily why they'll never have a good partnership. As a playmaker his first touch and passing is way too inconsistent plus the fact that most of his passes are raking cross-field balls to the Valencia rather than intricate through balls. By far his best position is that of a creative, second-striker- a similar role to what Dwight Yorke played- in a 442- this formation prevents the need to drift wide, thus keeping him in his best position. Unfortunately however finding two quality box-to-box CMs ( as well as wingers) these days makes this somewhat challenging. Our best bet would be:

The main issues here are that Januzaj and Di Maria are starting too wide to be fully effective although more problematic is Blind not having a good enough engine to play the role to full effect. That said this would be a possibility since Herrera could provide sufficient creativity thus preveting Rooney from having to turn into a playmaker. If Mata were to be injured, I wouldn't mind seeing how this would work.

The only other way to fit Rooney in is a rather defensive looking 3-1-4-2 which isn't really an option except against the biggest sides- having Di Maria as the left CM should limit Rooney having to drift wide although this puts great pressure on Rafael to play very high up the pitch to prevent Falcao from moving into the wide-right area where he's obviously less effective.


If you play Rooney you have to give him the best platform and on a consistent basis, otherwise he's awful as we've seen over the past few seasons. Thinking about it, selling Rooney would have been much better business than selling Welbeck. NB. I'm not a Welbeck fan- he's a more skilled but much less goal rich version of Andy Cole. That said Welbeck is younger,  much more flexible than Rooney and would have provided something a little different upfront allowing him to form better partnerships with Falcao and RVP. Welbeck's much younger and on lower wages. We could have flogged Rooney for £50m, stopped paying £300,000 and removed a bad influence from the dressing room. Rooney does provide a lot of advertising and commercial revenue but I think the fee and loss of wage bill would likely more than compensated.

In summary, for this season at least, diamonds are LVG's best friend.

Saturday, 22 June 2013

All The Films We've Seen Since Being Married Ranked In Order


HelenSwith
1Toy StoryThe Trial
2Toy Story 3Toy Story
3InceptionToy Story 3
4Batman BeginsLawrence of Arabia
5UpBarry Lyndon
6Kind HeartsMagnolia
7MoonSolaris
8MagnoliaWild Strawberries
9DogvilleMoon
10Pan's LabyrinthMulholland Drive
11Mulholland DriveThe Island
12Jane EyreIn Bruges
13Les MiserablesThere Will Be Blood
14AladdinRashomon
15The Way BackUp
16The Wicker ManGran Torino
17Notes on a ScandalThe Tree of Life
18Lawrence of ArabiaBatman Begins
19Black SwanKind Hearts
20The Dark KnightPan's Labyrinth
21RanRan
22SolarisToy Story 2
23Toy Story 2The Wicker Man
24Wild StrawberriesDogville
25In BrugesInception
26MetropolisFalstaff
27Barry LyndonJane Eyre
28The IslandDon't Look Now
29RashomonAladdin
30The ShiningBlack Swan
31Seven SamuraiMetropolis
32The Imaginarium of Doctor ParnassusWall-E
33Don't Look NowLate Spring
34Monsters, IncThe Magician
35The MachinistPaths of Glory
36BigThe Way Back
37Home AloneA Prophet
38Willy Wonka and the Chocolate FactoryThe Shining
39Wall-EThe Cat Returns
40Enemy of the StateLes Miserables
41One Flew Over the Cuckoos NestMonsters, Inc.
42The Cat ReturnsAmerican Gangster
43Grave of the FirefliesSeven Samurai
44The King's SpeechSeventh Seal
45LOTR: Fellowship of the RingOne Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest
46Harry Potter Deathly Hallows Part IIBig
47Galaxy QuestHome Alone
48The Lion KingGalaxy Quest
49HellboyThe Machinist
50LOTR: The Two TowersThe Dark Knight
51LOTR: Return of the KingVertigo
52The IncrediblesFull Metal Jacket
53The Magician2001: A Space Odyssey
54Minority ReportBattle Royale
55Edward ScissorhandsNotes on a Scandal
56Casino RoyaleParis, Texas
57KnowingEdward Scissorhands
58Pirates of the CaribbeanPrincess Mononoke
59Throne of BloodGrave of the Fireflies
60MementoThe Dark Knight Rises
61VertigoFour Lions
62Nausicaa: Valley of the WindsThe Life of Brian
6310 Things I Hate About YouThe Lion King
64The OmenThe Incredibles
65The Hunger GamesCasino Royale
66Star TrekLOTR: Return of the King
67Laputa: Castle in the SkyLOTR: The Two Towers
68Vanilla SkyLOTR: Fellowship of the Ring
69Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1Pirates of the Caribbean
70Bride of Frankenstein10 Things I Hate About You
712001: A Space OdysseyThe Return
72Princess MononokeThe King's Speech
73Kiki's Delivery ServiceA History of Violence
74The Tree of LifeThe Mirror
75The Life of BrianThe Godfather
76Late SpringLA Confidential
77My Neighbour TotoroTotal Recall
78The Time MachineLaputa: Castle in the Sky
79Jane Eyre (2011)You've Been Trumped
80The ExorcistMagnificent Ambersons
81SpartacusBoogie Nights
82The Ring (USA)The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
83Rosemary's BabyWinter Light
84FalstaffEnemy of the State
85Brief EncounterThe Thin Red Line
86There Will Be BloodBlade Runner
87Fight ClubMinority Report
88The Sixth SenseKiki's Delivery Service
89The OthersThrone of Blood
90BadlandsThe Ring (USA)
91Total RecallThe Exorcist
92James and the Giant PeachThe Omen
93YojimboNausicaa: Valley of the Winds
94Pirates! An Adventure with ScientistsThe Hunger Games
95A Clockwork OrangeDr. Strangelove
96The Social NetworkHellboy
97Seventh SealHarry Potter Deathly Hallows Part II
98The GodfatherBrief Encounter
99SunshineHarry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1
100The ReturnSuspiria
101Magnificent AmbersonsYojimbo
102ElizabethJames and the Giant Peach
103Logan's RunRosemary's Baby
104Blade RunnerSpartacus
10550 First DatesA Clockwork Orange
106Cast AwaySunshine
107AnastasiaBride of Frankenstein
108Boogie NightsPirates! An Adventure with Scientists
109InsomniaDogma
110The Sword in the StoneRear Window
111Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless MindMemento
112The Neverending StoryNo Country for Old Men
113Paris, TexasThe Social Network
114Despicable MeRed Desert
115DogmaBadlands
116AlienInsomnia
117Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With MeWaltz with Bashir
118The Little Norse PrinceEyes Wide Shut
119The TrialSubmarine
120Source CodeBattleship Potemkin
121MonsterHard Eight
122The Fly Fight Club
123Transformers: The MovieThrough a Glass Darkly
12421 GramsAlien
125Hard EightDespicable Me
126Crimes and MisdemeanorsAutumn Sonata
127Synecdoche, New YorkEternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind
128The Straight StoryCrimes and Misdemeanors
129Wrath of KhanTwin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me
130Act of ValorThe Long Day Closes
131If…The Others
132X-Men: First ClassVanilla Sky
133AirplaneThe Sixth Sense
134Napoleon DynamiteUnforgiven
135Cast Away
136The Straight Story
137Transformers: The Movie
138The Sword in the Stone
139La Regle du Jeu
140The Fly
141The Godfather II
142The Bird with the Crystal Plummage
143Cries and Whispers
144Monty Python: The Meaning of Life
145A Matter of Life of Death
146Airplane
147Jackie Brown
148If…
149La Quatro Volte
150Synecdoche, New York
151Monster
152X-Men: First Class
153Wrath of Khan
154The Neverending Story
155Act of Valor
156Source Code
15721 Grams
158The Silence

Wednesday, 19 June 2013

Worst 20 Films Since Being Married

Following our Top 20 films since being married (for three years) here is our much more controversial bottom 20.

NB. Very mild plot spoiler warning.

No. 20  
  • Helen - Dogma (Cert. 18) 6/10: Trying to be funny and quirky but failing at times. The plot wasn't that interesting and I fell asleep before the end.
  • Swith - La Regle du Jeu 5/10: An un-engaging farce with too many characters and predictable plot about infidelity.
No. 19
  • Helen - Alien 5/10: Setting and alien looked good, but the plot was terrible.
  • Swith - The Fly 5/10: Overacted yet woodenly acted, contrived plot and very squidgy. The dissolve in the first scene was the best part of the film.
No. 18
  • Helen - Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me (Cert.18) 5/10: Disappointingly dull. Laura Palmer seems out of character, wandering around aimlessly for most of the film and it doesn't seem to go anywhere. The usual quirky characters weren't present. The dream sequences didn't help redeem it enough and the beginning of the film was especially long and seemed pointless.
  • Swith - The Godfather Part II 5/10: The father son contrast simply doesn't work. Un-engaging from the outset with a sprawling and unfocused narrative. Way too long. Cinematography average.
No. 17
  • Helen - The Little Norse Prince 5/10: Cute in places, but there wasn't much of a plot and it was quite slow moving.
  • Swith - The Bird with the Crystal Plumage 5/10: A standard thriller with no characters nor substance of note.
No. 16
  • Helen - The Trial (Cert. PG) 5/10: Intriguing at the start, but gets weird, random and hard to follow later on. Not much of a plot, more a philosophical point. Liked the opening animation. Didn't find any of the characters likeable.
  • Swith - Cries and Whispers 5/10: A film about the lack of communication failed to communicate in terms of story and character. Acting was good though and Sven Nykvist's cinematography was excellent.
No. 15
  • Helen - Source Code (Cert. 12) 5/10: Looked promising at the start, but dull after that, as it didn't matter what happened to him. Characters were bad and there was a disappointing saccharin ending. The bad guy was terrible and not convincing.
  • Swith - Monty Python and the Meaning of Life (Cert. 15) 5/10: Occasionally amusing absurdist series of sketches on the meaning of life. No narrative of which to speak and many sketches are too long and try too hard.
No. 14
  • Helen -Monster 5/10: Boring and didn't like the characters.
  • Swith - A Matter of Life and Death 5/10: Interesting premise but went nowhere, pointed to nothing and was awfully predictable.
No. 13
  • Helen -The Fly 5/10: Far too unsubtle about everything. Grotesque costume was pretty good though.
  • Swith - Airplane 5/10: Not as funny as it thought it was.
No. 12
  • Helen -Transformers: The Movie 5/10: Not a very good plot, but some of the transformations were cool.
  • Swith - Jackie Brown 5/10: Too long, un-funny and shallow crime drama.
No. 11
  • Helen -21 Grams 5/10: Boring. Firstly, you had to figure out who everyone was, then nothing interesting happened.
  • Swith - If... 5/10: Saw what they were trying to do with authority vs rebellion but had too many characters and was rather slow and un-engaging.
No. 10
  • Helen -Hard Eight 5/10: Beginning looked interesting, then it was just dull. Didn't care about the characters.
  • Swith - La Quattro Volte (Cert. U) 5/10: The four lives of an old man, a goat, a tree and dust. Essentially the circle of life without plot, characters and literally no music. Some good technique in parts showing with the man and below from the goat. Pretentious but not as annoying as it could have been.
No. 9
  • Helen - Crimes and Misdemeanours (Cert. 15) 5/10: Dull, and hardly anything happened. Didn't particularly like any of the characters and didn't care what they did.
  • Swith - Synecdoche, New York 5/10: Occasionally amusing but subtext is a poor plot. Deliberately quirky in parts which had an uneven effect. Far, far too long. Watch Persona or Mulholland Drive instead.
No. 8
  • Helen - Synecdoche, New York 5/10: Too long and depressing. Didn't really like any of the characters.
  • Swith - Monster 5/10: Shallow, incoherent and dull.
No.7
  • Helen - The Straight Story 5/10: Slow and dull (fell asleep). The guy on the lawnmower seemed interesting at first.
  • Swith - X-Men: First Class 4/10: Too many characters, too little plot, clichéd and boring from start to finish. X-Men: Third Class.
No. 6
  • Helen - Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan 5/10: Extended dull Star Trek episode.
  • Swith - Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan 4/10: Extended dull Star Trek episode with some seriously bad dialogue and characterisation.
No. 5
  • Helen - Act of Valor (Cert. 15) 5/10: Really dull war movie. Predictable and I felt nothing for the characters, as all that seemed to happen was running around and shooting.
  • Swith - The Neverending Story 4/10: Humanist saccharine, plot-less, no-D characters. The music is reasonable in parts.
No.4
  • Helen - If... 5/10: Not that interesting, could've told the story in half the time.
  • Swith - Act of Valor (Cert. 15) 4/10: Seriously dull American propaganda film. No characters or plot, some nice edits though.
No. 3
  • Helen - X-Men: First Class 4/10: Barely any plot, cheesy and clichéd. Too long and too many characters plus they were bad characters.
  • Swith - Source Code (Cert. 12) 4/10: Putrid. No tension, no characters, no plot and no ideas. American ruling class propaganda against the "new threat"- "the right-wing WASP". Saccharin ending and "emotive" music.
No. 2 
  • Helen - Airplane 4/10: Not funny, tried too hard.
  • Swith - 21 Grams 4/10: Worthy, pretentious, irritating music, unengaging, poor characters, dire dialogue in parts and boring.
No.1
  • Helen - Napoleon Dynamite 4/10: Funny in places, but thinks it's funnier than it is.
  • Swith - The Silence 4/10: One note plod about the silence of God, the meaninglessness of life and the inability of communication. Needs to find a plot and some characters.

Honourable Mentions: Films We Didn't Finish

Pather Panchali
  • Helen - Very boring, nothing happened. Characters were dull; didn't finish (1st hour only).
  • Swith - Plotless, witless and dull. Also the mother character was immensely irritating.
Carousel
  • Helen - Despite one good sequence, it was clichéd, dull and slow. Stopped watching an hour in.
Good Morning (An Ozu Film)
  • Both - Didn't finish - nothing happened.
Only Yesterday
  • Both - Didn't finish - Anime, nothing happened.


Stay alert in the next few days for the fully ordered list of all of the films we have seen since being married.

Sunday, 16 June 2013

Top 20 Films Since Being Marrried

On the 12th June Helen and I celebrated our third Wedding Anniversary. Just after being married I began a rating regime- soon after watching a film (this then was later extended to TV series, restaurants, beer and cider) we would review it out of ten in our Film Ratings book. Then, with film only, we would rank the films in order with the score out of ten marking the boundaries in which they can be placed; after a film has been ranked it cannot be moved unless it is seen again or pushed up/down by a different film. This system has its limitations though: looking at the whole list there are films I would now move however it was designed with this type of inflexibility in mind. The spark for this idea came a few months after we watched Darren Aronofsky's Pi. At the time Helen seemed to really enjoy it but a few months later she remembered disliking it. Hence the rating and ranking scale was born.

So here comes the Top 20 with original short reviews attached (they typically become more insightful the more recently we watched them), plus our own version of the BBFC's certification scale but this was very much a recent addition so won't accompany many of the films.

NB - Very mild plot spoiler warning

No. 20
  • Helen- The Dark Knight (Cert. 15) 7/10:  Intense and terrifying. The Joker is scary and unpredictable. I felt the film however was too long and could have done with some editing , plus there were a few minor plot holes. Some of the action sequences looked good and Batman had some cool gadgets.
  • Swith - Pan's Labyrinth 8/10: Too predictable but well shot and acted with some interesting neo-Gnostic concepts.
No. 19
  • Helen - Black Swan 7/10: Excellent leading lady, gory and scary in places. 
  • Swith - Kind Hearts and Coronets 8/10: Slow start but picked up, good ending, funny.
No. 18
  • Helen - Lawrence of Arabia 7/10: Slow but engrossing
  • Swith - Batman Begins (Cert. 12) 8/10:  An exciting story with a strong theme although the latter is heavy handed in places. Batman's character is well drawn with extremely likeable characters played by Freeman and Caine. Surprisingly amusing throughout. Could have been trimmed somewhat.
No. 17
  • Helen - Notes on a Scandal 8/10: Interesting and built up well. Judi Dench acted well.
  • Swith - The Tree of Life 8/10: Interesting and visually stunning non-linear story about evolution, death and faith. Clearly way too long in parts though the family scenes and child acting were excellent. The music was great too. A shame the earnest voice-overs and somewhat pat-pantheism spoil the film.
No. 16
  • Helen - The Wicker Man 8/10: Great mystery revealed step by step.
  • Swith - Gran Torino (Cert. 15) 8/10: A very funny but sober tale of immigration, modern manhood and growing up. Possibly a little slow in places and some of the characters a little cliched but ultimately very rewarding. Eastwood's grumpy old man is very charismatic. 
No. 15
  • Helen - The Way Back  (Cert. 12) 8/10: An interesting film about journeying across countries. Great variety of back drops. Some good characters and funny in places.
  • Swith - Up (Cert. U) 8/10: A surprisingly profound tale of family and adventure. Excellent beginning but loses momentum in parts. Clever design but the music is just above average. 
No. 14
  • Helen - Aladdin 8/10: Entertaining, nice story and good music.
  • Swith - Rashomon 8/10: Great exposition of human nature and the nature of truth especially in the judicial context.
No. 13
  • Helen - Les Miserables (Cert. 12) 8/10: Excellent music. Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway were excellent at acting whilst singing their parts. It was however a little one dimensional and could've been more cinematic. Brought back good memories of singing in a choir at school.
  • Swith - There Will Be Blood (Cert. 15) 8/10: Excellent dialogue free opening. An enigmatic contrast of a charismatic preacher and primarily an oil tycoon who will do anything to get to the top. Beautifully shot and had well crafted sequences. Also all the violence was painful. Music was intense but somewhat one note which could also be levelled at the theme. Narratively, loses its way in the third act.
No. 12 
  • Helen - Jane Eyre (1943) 8/10: Very good story and pace. Liked the characters. A tad predictable.
  • Swith - In Bruges 8/10: Funny black comedy with very believable characters and redemptive themes (also rather gory in places)
No. 11
  • Helen - Mulholland Drive 8/10: Bizarre, but very interesting - takes a while to figure out (watch again)
  • Swith - The Island 8/10: The bleak landscape is beautifully shot but is given warmth by the fire and humour. Richly textured, disturbing in parts but ultimately redemptive.
No. 10
  • Helen - Pan's Labyrinth 8/10: Full of suspense, fairy tale.
  • Swith - Mulholland Drive 8/10: Oblique deconstruction of the nature of acting, narcissism and Hollywood. Great visuals and scene composition.
No. 9
  • Helen - Dogville (Cert. 15) 8/10: Unpredictable. Seemed a little dull at first, but then became engrossing. The ending was also surprising and interesting.
  • Swith - Moon 8/10: Sam Rockwell gives a great performance and this is an intriguing film. Interesting take on what it is to be human.
No. 8
  • Helen - Magnolia 8/10: Great film, imaginative, interesting and moves quickly. Positive outlook on confession and forgiveness.
  • Swith - Wild Strawberries 8/10: Multi-layered portrayal of a man's life, great dream sequences, standard Bergman existentialism. 
No. 7
  • Helen - Moon 8/10: Sam Rockwell gives a great performance and this is an intriguing film.
  • Swith - Solaris 8/10:  Unnerving in parts and unpredictable. An interesting study of guilt and repentance. Great sci-fi and intriguing ending. Too slow in parts but good visuals. 
No. 6
  • Helen - Kind Hearts and Coronets 8/10: Funny and entertaining, good ending.
  • Swith - Magnolia 9/10: Operatic, cinematic take on truth and deceit.
No. 5
  • Helen - Up 8/10: Cute adventure story that is tear-inducing in places. Funny, but some of the humour is lost on a second viewing.
  • Swith - Barry Lyndon 9/10: Great visuals, music and stately but unpredictable and interesting. Stylishly directed but maybe slightly coldly.
No.4
  • Helen - Batman Begins (Cert. 12) 8/10: Interesting and exciting. Nice to see how Batman develops as a character. Plot though is over dramatic and unrealistic at times. Batman, Lucien Fox and Alfred are likeable.
  • Swith - Lawrence of Arabia (Cert. PG) 9/10: Before the intermission it is incredible: beautiful images of the desert, a sweeping journey of one man searching for meaning with a glorious soundtrack; it was also surprisingly amusing throughout. Excellently drawn supporting cast flanking the mesmerising O'Toole. After the intermission though Lawrence's fall is too quick and loses narrative cohesion.
No.3
  • Helen - Inception 8/10: Excellent action and intensity; as good as last time - worth the rewatch.
  • Swith - Toy Story 3 9/10: A great finish to a great trilogy. Not as efficient as the original and has an irritating plot contrivance: Mrs Potato Head's eye. Nice anti-communist film too plus a film about moving on.
No. 2
  • Helen - Toy Story 3 9/10: Didn't like it quite as much as last time, however, still an excellent story, funny in places with interesting characters. Great music once again.
  • Swith - Toy Story 9/10: Snappy plot and dialogue. Great characters and music. Very funny but also has great depth: realising that you were made for someone and that is where you find your true happiness. Lacks only visual flair.
No. 1
  • Helen - Toy Story 10/10: Snappy plot and dialogue. Great characters and music.
  • Swith - The Trial (Cert. PG) 10/10: Absolutely brilliant. Excellently shot, acted, edited and scored. A great exposé of the corruption of government and the place of sex in a meaningless universe.

Stay alert in the next few days for our worst 20 films.

Tuesday, 28 August 2012

Libertarianism, Christianity and Gay Marriage



The whole gay marriage push is historically interesting since 30 years ago most of the homosexual movement were and probably still are, bohemians who rather than get married would rather liberate heterosexuals from the bourgeois constraints of marriage. For an excellent discussion of this, listen to this podcast.

Given a libertarian society, i.e. no taxation, there would be no immediate financial for being married, although in the UK these days it actually pays to be unmarried in some cases due to the welfare system. So why would anyone get married? On the finance front the most obvious reason is children- if one party abandons the other then without a marriage contract the abandoned would be burdened with the costs of raising the children; it also helps in determining inheritance of property. Now for obvious biological reasons consistent homosexuals cannot reproduce. The homosexual libertarian Justin Raimondo makes a case against gay marriage mainly in regards the lack of children here.

Another reason would be love as such they want to objectify their life long love and relationship, which would include some homosexuals. The problem with this as it presently legally stands, at least in the UK, is that marriage is no longer for life. At a marriage ceremony there is no declaration of lifelong commitment, nor a vow of faithfulness.

However one of the major reasons for marriage, in the West, is the legacy, or belief, of the Christian doctrine that marriage is ordained by God between a man and women. It holds that men and women are equal in dignity, but different and complementary and that the proper place for sexual activity is in a life long marriage. Now since sex implies children this is all wrapped up together with God's command to Adam and Eve to multiply and subdue the Earth. Lest anyone argue that the Bible is anti-sex this quote from Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 will be of interest:

The husband must [a]fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a

time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and [b]come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

The underlying problem of the whole gay marriage movement is its egalitarianism - men and women are essentially interchangeable. There's no need for fathers and mothers, or husbands and wives but of loving carers and life partners. This attitude reminds me of the male member of the People's Front Judea (I think) in The Life of Brian who wanted to bear children. Other members argued for his right to bear children when John Cleese's character responds something like he needs to sort his problems with reality. In a way it is directly related to the tabula rasa, nature vs nurture threads that have appeared recently: mankind is not infinitely malleable, he has a nature. It is obvious for anyone that men and women are different and that biological differences are an obvious pointer to that. In a way egalitarianism rejects the comparative advantages of the sexes and as such is destructive to civilisation. The present lack of specialsation of roles especially relating to children is due to the welfare system which encourages mothers to work outside the home; note also though the schooling system is one massive and expensive babysitting service.

Now given the reason of children and the innate differences between men and women the incidence of gay marriage, in a libertarian society would be rather low and as such the big push for it seems somewhat odd. There may be some genuine support for it but it seems as though it is a symbol of a liberal's purity at present. Further though it is being co-opted by the ruling class as a further means of egalitarian leveling which will make we the ruled easier to exploit when our natural allegiances have been weakened.

Now clearly gay marriage should not be illegal but it should not be promoted. Libertarians and conservatives should, rather than oppose the gay marriage, support and advocate parallel marriage contracts. In particular allowing Churches the power to make those, men and women, who marry in their buildings sign a weightier, more traditional contract which can be enforced in the courts. This essentially means divorce is harder and the obligations placed on both parties is higher- it would again be a serious commitment rather than the fleeting one it is increasingly becoming; this would require Christians to again look at what are legitimate grounds for divorce and remarriage which many thought we could forget after the controversies of the 80s and 90s.  If this is seen to be successful, which I expect it would given man's nature, then it would then displace the statist marriage we have at present. and result in a more stable and prosperous society.

Tuesday, 18 October 2011

The Creation Museum in Kentucky

On my recent road trip around the USA I visited the Creation Musuem and here are my thoughts.

Firstly it is technically impressive. The animatronic exhibits are excellent and the feel of the entire place is one of quality; they’ve clearly spent a lot of money on the place. They also have many audio visual exhibits which cuts down on the amount of reading required; I really dislike museums that have walls and walls of text to read. The videos they play are normally rather short so you are constantly moving rather than stuck watching a video for half an hour. As an aside the more explicitly sciencey short videos were the most interesting item there. They also had some lovely gardens and a zoo but we didn’t see much of them due to time constraints.

The aim, as I understood it, was to show that everyone looks at the world with a particular lense which is non-neutral- the examples used were atheism and Christian theism- but with a greater emphasis on the Biblical narrative making sense of the universe particularly 6 Day Creation, Fall, the Flood, Babel and finally Christ. Consequently the amount of science content was proportional low; most of it was focused around geology which was quite informative.

It did not though succeed even on its own terms: the worldview analysis was rather shallow and misleading at times- it was hardly assumption quaking; the Biblical narrative exposition was good although it felt as it was focused towards Christians rather convincing others of it i.e. far too little of actual creation evolution debate (and anthropology). It took me a while to figure out the purpose of the museum.

If you are a Creationist or an Evolutionist of any stripe it doesn’t provide enough science to get your teeth into. If you are a non-Christian it won’t convince you of the Biblical narrative since it doesn’t adequately engage with non-Christian narratives.

All in all, a missed opportunity and an expensive one at that- not cheap especially if you took a family (it’s deliberately kid friendly but there are clearly adult exhibits). So if you are a Creationist or an Evolutionist I’d say go to some botanic gardens and read some books on the subjects.

Tuesday, 4 October 2011

Libertarianism and the Arts

The arts are one area in which I think libertarians need to engage in more. Firstly we need to appreciate there importance, especially narrative art (stories in any form) which I will be focusing on.

When we look at book sales it is clear that fiction far out sells non-fiction, but why? My contention is that stories are far more akin to real life human experience than non-fiction: they have a real sequential element. All humans exist and act in time and thus a story being a condensed version of human life is far more appealing than non-fiction which in essence is timeless: empirical science, economics, philosophy et al; history would be an exception but a lot of that is done rather impersonally and you really need a pre-existing interest in the period itself to read it. One of the great strengths of narrative is that you can create emotions and realistic characters which you can’t do timelessly. Herein lies the appeal and the power of narrative.

With stories you can create ideals to aspire for and systems to denigrate. This can be powerfully demonstrated by human cost or achievement to a character you already have an emotionally investment. We therefore need a libertarian saga, or meta-narrative, which libertarian novelists and filmmakers can feed from. A saga which shows the world before the state to the descent to it and finally its obliteration, whilst demonstrating the dignity of the individual person and the virtue of liberty. So essentially we need our own version of the Marxist theory of history. Now one of the main obstacles to this raises its ugly head which is due to libertarianism being such a broad church (here a libertarian is defined as one who adheres to the NAP): we all agree on the pre and post statist world but disagree on how the state came into being and how it will collapse. For example I see the state as the ultimate rejection of God since becoming a state is the closest thing to God you can get. Thus it fits in well with my Christian meta-narrative of creation, fall and redemption. Others would see it as the outworking of an authority based life view and that a non-statist world would be rather egalitarian. I do not intend to discuss the validity of these competing views here but to illustrate their existence.

Consequently more work needs to be done on the origin and rise of the state. Even though some sides are unlikely to come to agreement this it will help to articulate more precisely different libertarians sagas. From this framework the evils of statism can be exposed and the virtue of freedom lauded. However it needs to be understood however that stories do not convince people of certain ideologies: they merely sensitise people towards them. To use stories as propaganda is hokey and makes for bad stories. At present statist films sensitise people to the idea that business is sleazy and evil so they want to here logical arguments as to why it is and the state is better (having said that a lot of films essentially are propaganda but we shouldn’t stoop that low). This is why we always get the question: what should the government do? One of the main tasks for the libertarian story teller is to sensitise people to the goodness of liberty. Today most people want a cushy life without responsibility. We need to change that.

So the task for the libertarian story teller is to create stories with real characters, we should not do the opposite of the socialists and make every government official a bogeyman, and compelling plots within a libertarian meta-narrative.

As an addendum can any body recommend any decent libertarian films or literature? I obviously know of Rand but I get the impression her work tends towards propaganda. I’ve read the first of the Sword of Truth series, the Wizard’s First Rule, by the Objectivist Terry Goodkind which was actually very good but I hear the rest of the books get worse. As for my own recommendations I can go no further than recommend the TV series the Prisoner starring Patrick McGoohan. I’m not sure the show is a show case for libertarianism as Chris Tame argued but for a show championing the individual it’s brilliant.

Tuesday, 27 September 2011

Why isn't the Truth More Mainstream

Following the Why isn't Austrian School of Economics more mainstream? thread it got me thinking why are the most widely held doctrines fly in the face of reality: from economics, to climate change and as far as literary theory the accepted "truth" is as far from itself as east is from west.


The question is why? All of you who have read Hayek may blame the intellectuals which of course are a major factor though isn't fundamental. I believe the two major factors are the formal education system and societal nihilism.


The current formal education system has no compass. Nobody knows what its purpose is. Is it to cultivate virtue? Is it to aid the examined life? We have the deafening sound of silence (I'm going through a Simon and Garfunkel phase). To hear this, just listen to political debates and inane public contributions. All it boils down to is we can do it better than the other party and the public saying the old days never aged. What one means by better is never discussed. Now you may argue that may be what the comprehensive (public for you over the pond) schools are like but in the hallowed cloisters of the university truth seeking is the sole quest. In fact universities are some of the most debauched institutions around. Both in my economics degree and my brother's Theoretical Physics masters the sole aim was to churn you through the mill to receive a piece of paper. And this was at a true red brick university. But why? The unuttered, though sometimes occasionally, ad hoc justification is the Marxian idea that education is to develop men for industry: otherwise known as to get a job.


The state funding of the educational institutions fosters this mentality. The incentive for the schools is to get as many children through their books as possible to learn and regurgitate the state's curriculum since that's what they call the piper’s successful "knowledge economy" tune; in fact it’s one of the few tune’s he can call with such a centralised system and an incredibly qualitative area. Attempting cultivation of the person for the examined life is neither possible nor desirable as it would lead to the State’s delegitimisation; similar problems exist with the universities. Further the free at the point of incarceration nature of schools, parents are encouraged to abandon their natural nurture and care of their children and leave it to the professionals. With children abandoned to the state their minds are rendered indolent; the exception being the children of the ruling class who enrol in elite private academies.


In the more academic environment it encourages scientism of the highest order since nothing else will get that grant money. The state can only be a pragmatic institution otherwise it would have died a death long ago. The success in the 19th/20th advances in the empirical sciences all disciplines attempted to ape this by making their studies "scientific" one because it was fashionable but also since it produces “results” which is the only thing the state deals in. This led to emasculation of the social sciences and the arts. Why fund some one to read when you can do on experiment which produces numbers?! It also harmed the hard sciences as well: not once was the nature or appropriate method discussed in the Theoretical Physics masters. All they were concerned with was throwing maths at everything so they could test it irrespective of whether the maths actually makes any sense in reality.

This is not to say that in a purely private formal educational system that pragmatism would be the name of the game however I think it would be tempered. With the hard sciences research would either be directed towards developing useful technologies which could involve arbitrary reasoning or could follow the Baconian idea that technological advancement comes as an offshoot of pure science. The current statist system and the prevailing scientism conflate the two resulting in today’s system.

The more fundamental reason though is the prevailing societal view is nihilistic. There is no truth, no laws and no God. We came from nothing and are going to nothing (I’m not saying no God implies nihilism but you can see why most nihilists are atheists since if there’s an overarching designer it would mean presence rather than absence) A slightly more nuanced view is that truth could exist but it is unknowable however it makes little practical difference. Consequently society as a whole is underpinned by the intensity over profundity principle (Don’t think I’m so profound as to come up with that- I stole it from this clever chap’s lecture- The Self at the End of the 20th Century Part 3 ) Since there is no telos to discover the only way to feel truly alive is through intense physical experience. Now since the same level of thrill has diminishing returns the incentive is to turn things up to 11.


This can be seen in many elements in modern society. The increase in drug use and self harming are most immediate examples of this phenomenon. A less direct effect but nonetheless evident is the representation of acts of violence and sex in the arts; they are realised to create an intense experience rather than left to the imagination. The area with which I’m most familiar in this regard is film. Take the film The Shawshank Redemption and compare the level of graphic violence with say No Country for Old Men: both were rated 15 in the UK (second only to an 18) yet the latter is light years ahead in the violence stakes. If No Country had have been made when Shawshank had been, 15 years or so ago, it certainly would have received 18 certificate. No Country may be actually making point with the violence and may not be entirely artless but it shows the intensity progression. Maybe the best (sic) example of brainless violence are the so called “torture porn” genre exemplified by the Saw (the 1st could be an exception) and Hostel franchise which are just sadistic because they can- the violence is the entertainment.


Interestingly one of the most nihilistic blockbusters of modern times, the Dark Knight actually eschewed realisation in favour of imagination and was far more affecting for it, although the main reason was probably so they could do the deal with Burger King. For an in depth review of the Dark Knight see here but the main points are man is depraved and “Chance is the only reality in this cruel world. Unprejudiced. Unbiased. Fair.” Two Face.


The increase in graphic nudity and sex for pure titillation value is also pervasive in films. For no logical reason scenes are shot in pole dancing clubs or female “characters” will walk across their bedroom topless. In the Lars von Trier film Antichrist the actors actually have sex on screen to further the realisation process. Further most of life is becoming fetishised, even food- the Marks and Spencer food adverts are more erotic than Channel 5’s straight to video sleazefests. This is unsurprising when sex is viewed purely in materialistic terms and is no different than slugs copulating; since there is only the hormonal kick, why not get it anywhere, anytime?


Now I’m not decrying the use of nudity/sex and violence on screen but just how and why it is used. The sex scene in Nicholas Roag’s Don’t Look Now is graphic but is an incredibly intimate and tasteful scene. Further Shakespeare and the Bible have quite a bit of it in too. Obviously there has always been a tendency to put the intense before the profound: Aristotle said that man is most often closer to the beasts than the spirit. And yes we don’t have Gladiators yet. The point stands however we are certainly heading further into the pit of intensity and the prevailing worldview encourages it.


In conclusion the formal education system isn’t set up to search for the truth but merely in producing compliant AI (Artificial Ignorance); and society thinks only sexy needles “exist”.

Tuesday, 20 September 2011

Toy Story 3: An Anti-Communist Film (warning spoilers)

(Penned a while ago)

After being stuck in horrendous traffic last night we missed Inception, although will catch it next week, so my wife and I watched Toy Story 3 in 2D (because 3D is overated and more expensive). It is a really great film and possibly even better than the first although I haven't seen it for a while. Funny, poignant and exciting: this is far more than a kid's film.

The premise is that Andy ages to become 17 and will leave for college on Friday, and the question arises what will he do with his old toys- we learn that a lot of his toys have been sold or donated. He decides to take Woody with him to college and to put the rest in the attic. His mum mistakes them for the rubbish and puts them outside. Thinking they were to be thrown away they jump into Andy's mum's car to be donated to Sunnyside day care centre along with some of Molly's toys. And then the story really begins.

At Sunnyside we learn that after an initial glorious preview that it is run by a tyrannical bear called Lotso who assigns the room with the older, gentler children, to those who have proved their loyalty to him and puts the rest of the toys with the toddlers who abuse the toys. Of particular note he attempts to break up Andy's family of toys to re-allign their allegience to him. Further he utters the line, no owners means no heart break. His paradise is seemingly a psudeo communist one at day care where the children come and go but the toys remains forever, albeit under his control.

This is contrasted with a new family of toys owned by a girl from the day centre (I can't remember her name) who have a wonderful life in her bedroom where they are loved and cared for by her owner. To reinforce this point at the end Andy decides, with a little help from Woody, to donate them not to daycare but to the girl.

So it seems clear that one of the main points is that ownership is better than non-ownership; the toddlers display the tragedy of the commons. Further that ownership is related to being a family which is seen as natural rather than the imposed communist regime. Also if you see the child toy owners as God you could view the film in a sort of feudalist film as whenever the toys deviate from God's appointed king Woody's orders they stray from their masters will and are thus not where they will flourish. Now since there are many child owners it's a sort of polytheistic feudalism.

There are a few points that could be made against this reading. The first arises from the original in which Sid could be seen as a devil vs god (Andy) and as such not all child owners are benevolent. Having said that it could just be an attack on the abuse of power. Secondly and more pertinently, Barbie, in the latest film, spouts that power only derives from the consent of the governed. Now it supposed to be an amusing line but it's backed up later when the Aliens from Pizza Planet eventually control the claw at the end and become co-equals; throughout they reverence the claw- "the claw is our master, he decides who will go and who will stay". And finally in the credits we see Sunnyside as a paradise run by Barbie and Ken showing that if you get the right leader daycare can be really great.

However the main thrust of the film is that ownership is superior to none ownership even if neo-fedualist elements are balanced out by democratic arguments.

Wednesday, 27 October 2010

Why I am not Necessarily Wrong

An argument for free will (or more precisely libertarian free will)

Libertarian free will (as opposed to compatibilism) is defined as the ability to choose A or non-A.

Is libertarian free will (LFW) true?

It is necessarily true since otherwise one couldn't evaluate the truth value of the question "Is LFW true?" because you could only conclude what you were determined to do which gives no foundation for truth

There is one exception which would be if one were epistemologically infallible. This would then give a solid foundation for truth under determinism.

Yet this is obviously false since it is possible for me to argue, and believe to be true, that 2+2=3 which demonstrates that I must have varying degrees of determined fallibility (assuming determinism). And since fallible determinism gives no foundation for truth we must again reject determinism.

Therefore LFW is true.

What does this imply? (Or how can we metaphysically justify the existence of LFW)

We cannot be purely material beings since we would be determined by our neurological pathways or other laws of nature.

If we were then you are either stuck with cast iron laws of nature which results in cast ironly determined "choices", or accept quantum randomness which implies a complete scatter gun type "choice".

And as above this gives no foundation for truth and therefore must be rejected.

This implies then a substance dualism (trichotomy or more) of man since can provide a foundation for real choices as it can be neither random nor subject cast iron laws. At present I can't elaborate on what this non-material substance is apart from the fact it provides the necessary metaphysical foundation for LFW.

Finally it implies that the will is basic and as such causes itself.

Saturday, 21 August 2010

How Children Learn In Bite Size Pieces (1/6)

First up in my Educating Education project is John Holt's 1967 work, How Children Learn.

Foreword

Holt sets out his thesis clearly: young children tend to learn better than adults (and they themselves when they are older) since they use their minds in a special way. Holt’s contention is that most parenting and schooling trains out this natural method. The results are only a few become good at learning, but most are humiliated and discouraged; the children are more limited than what they could have become. If we better understand how children really learn then school may become a place where all children can grow.

This book attempts to chart how children do learn rather than analysing the brain to create a child psychology theory; the children contained herein are mostly of pre-school age. The human mind is a mystery and as such should be modest and tentative about any conclusions drawn. That said teachers and learners have known for some time that vivid and pleasurable experiences are easiest to remember and memory works best when unforced.

Chapter 1: Games and Experiments

One of the themes is that children love to create, for example their own songs: they are normally a mix of sense and nonsense, but creating new variations of words and music is a strain on an adult’s imagination so much so their efforts are rarely better than a child’s. Yet most schools concentrate on teaching songs for children to get “right” rather than creating anything, it’s merely compulsory fun, thus alienates many children and they become non-singers. Carl Orff’s method suggests that when a child is given many opportunities to make up their own chants and tunes their musical and verbal growth can be very rapid.

Further they have an “Instinct of Workmanship”. Lisa, two years old, started to copy Holt’s clapping in time with the music and then his more complex movements such as tapping his hand with one hand and his stomach with the other. She didn’t get it right first time, and note well she felt she didn’t need to, but was always checking back and forth to improve until it was a pretty accurate copy (Holt muses that children would learn a great deal by asking questions and imitating real people doing real work such as craftsmen). She started by doing something and thinking how to fix it. We often miss this because children are unskilful and use crude materials; watch the loving care with which a child smoothes off a sandcastle. They want to make it as well as they can, not to please someone else, but to satisfy themselves.

Another example was when Lisa found a ballpoint and took it apart. Holt started to put it together but she said no and began to put its four pieces together. She took twenty minutes to reassemble the pen; she came close but didn’t have the dexterity to achieve it, but she never became angry or discouraged. Holt then reflected on why so many four year olds in nursery schools become tearful or angry when the couldn’t complete a puzzle; he suspects that it’s because they are in a status-conscious situation all struggling for the approval of the teacher or each other. Lisa though is only putting the pen together as an end in itself.

Holt also believes that children are natural learners. They though learn not like scientists, asking a question then cutting out all unnecessary data, but by amassing as much data as possible until they know which questions to ask- they grown up in a strange world and understand a tiny amount of what happens. This explains why children are more likely to try new things, such as play a cello, than would an adult; the latter find it difficult to work in the noise. Furthermore the child is much less likely to draw hard and fast conclusions than an adult from little data. These vital skills of thought, which in our hurry to get him thinking, may very well stunt or destroy in the process of “educating” him.

An interesting example is a little boy who is “noticing (and) quick” yet hates to be taught. He loves though to learn and stores objects up for future use; he also uses his spade and hammer with great care and loves helping his parents in the garden. However when we try to teach the ABCs he becomes furious and frustrated probably because he sees no meaning in it, states Holt. Lisa, now five, on the other hand is a serious student and worries about her grades despite receiving straight As yet she deeply dislikes school.

Children can learn some cause-and-effect games when they are very young. Holt accidentally bumped heads with a girl no more than 7 months old gently whilst carrying her. He said, “Bump”. She seemed to enjoy it so I said “Bump” again and bumped his forehead against hers. After a few goes she soon learnt the game and when I said “Bump” she would “Bump” her head against mine. Sometimes however it takes a while for a child to learn that a particular event A will lead to another event B with regularity. In general acquainting a child with a mechanical device that he can work and fix, aids the understanding of causal laws since he learns that not only do many actions have predictable effects but also that the world is a sensible and trustworthy place.

The best games with little children, though, flow naturally from the situation of the moment. However if the child isn’t enjoying the game, it’s tempting think that if we just play it a little more he will enjoy it but he won’t, and we won’t.

Another major idea is the intrinsic independence of the child. Lisa finds it impossible to see why she should not touch items that everyone else does. Every day she hears, “Don’t touch that, it’s too hot, too sharp etc” and each time she feels that we are attacking her right to investigate the world around her which is how she makes sense of it. This can destroy a child’s curiosity and make her feel that the world is full of hidden danger and ways of getting in trouble rather than being somewhere to explore and think about. Holt argues that we should keep every object that we do not want a child to touch out of reach and even out of sight. At the same time we should keep many cheap durable objects around that they could use, for example an eggbeater and a torch.

Danny whilst being very good at jigsaw puzzles would sometimes deliberately do them wrong just because it was funny. Further when looking at a book he would say “Tractor” when he knew it was a combine. Holt pondered this and concluded that symbols are ours to use as we wish. We can use them correctly or use them incorrectly as a joke. We are in charge, not symbols.

Children instinctively only fear a few things such as loud noises and loss of support. It looks like children catch most of their fears from their elders. Lisa was never afraid of any bugs, in fact she wanted to pick them up and look at them. However one day a twelve year-old girl, friend of her older sister, saw a spider in a room in which Lisa was residing and screamed hysterically until someone killed the spider. Thenceforth Lisa has been scared of all bugs. A part of her curiosity about the world has been shut off and who can tell when it will turn on again?

Lisa went to an amusement park and saw a little train. She looked interested but also a little frightened. Perhaps it was too big and too noisy. She said, “I can’t go train, I can’t go train”. After going on some different rides she declared, “I need to ride that train right now”. Holt thought she should have a chance to conquer her fear. However when she saw it just as big as before she said, “I can’t go train, I can’t go train”. It is easy to say why we fear things but not so easy to say where the drive comes from to overcome them particularly in a little child. Some kinds of courage are learned, but there is surely also an instinct of courage which we should nurture as best we can.

Holt was round at a house where he knew the children very well and he entered into an argument about politics. Whilst the argument was friendly it was too much for the children who circled around and moved in a conciliatory fashion to take the adults' minds off it and restore the cheerful and happy atmosphere. They are no doubt cruel to each other but near a child who is badly hurt or very unhappy children soon become distressed. It is a rare a child is capable of the sustained deliberate cruelty so often shown by adults. Sometimes though children hit each other not out of malice but what can only be described as an overwhelming urge to see what would happen. Holt was playing in the park with a friend, they were both aged three, and out of the blue he hit Holt with his toy shovel. They had been playing peacefully and Holt never understood why he did it.

In conclusion Holt argues that children are natural learners but rather than starting with an abstract concept their natural method is trial and error to comprehend the empirical world. They are also creative, independent, brave and persistent.